/Am 


BAP 


1^1 


^'M 


-V  k 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  '^* 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


AgJieiv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


-"? 


Mr.  SmtWs 

DEFENCE 

O  F    T  H  E 
ibodrine  of  Believers  Baptifm> 
By   lihmerfldn  only* 


THE 

DOCTRINE 

Of  Believer's   Baptifm, 

By  Immerfion   only  ; 

Afferted  and  maintained,  againfl:  the  AttemJ)ts 
of  Mr.  Jonathan  Parsons,  A.  M.  to 
invalidate  it,  in  two  Sermons  preached  at 
Haverhill  We0L'P^n(hy  Lord*s-Day  Jpril 
%hQ  2Stb.   1765  :   And  finqe  publifhed. 

By  Hezekiah  Smith,  A.  M, 

Late  of  NafTau-Hall  in  New-Jerfey. 
MInifter  of  the  Baptift-Church  in  Haverhill. 


".  Go  ye  into  all  the  World,  and  preach  the  Gofpel 
"  to  everv  Creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  bap-- 
««  tized,  fhall  be  faved." 

JlyANGELIST, 

**  Buried  with  him  i^  Eaptirn?," 

Paul. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  for,  and  Sold  by  PiiiLir  Freeman,  in  Ugiorv 
Street.    Mdcclxyi. 


THE 

PREFACE. 


€yiNCE  a  good  Name  is  rather  to  be  chofen 
^j  than  great  Riches,  none  can  reafonahly  blame  me^ 
for  thus  appearing  in  public,  to  vindicate  my  Cha^ 
raBer  from  the  heavy,  and  unjufi  Charge  alledged  by 
Mr,  Jonathan  Parfons,  in  his  Difcourfes  preached 
Jajl  Spring,  at  Haverhill,  Wefi  Parijh,  on  the  Subje£i 
cf  Infant  Baptifm  -,  which  he  hathfince  printed :  Nor 
for  appearing  in  Vindication  of  the  f acred  Ordinance 
of  Believers- Baptifm^  againfi  his  unfcriptural  Repre- 
fentations,  Tet  my  diftnclination  for  engaging  in  Con- 
trover  fy,  would  have  prevented  tbefe  Sheets  ;  had  not 
the  Solicitations  of  my  Friends,  my  own  Chara^er^ 
and  the  honour  of  God,^  prevailed  abov^  every  other 
Qonfideration. 

Before  I  proceed  te  remark  upon  his  Arguments  fe^ 
down  in  Favour  of  Infant  Baptifm,  1  pall  briefly  touch 
Upon  the  Charge  juft  hinted  at,  *  "  Haverhill  Weft 
«'  Farilh  had  been  for  fome  Months  A-tiptoe  after 
^'  a  zealous  Anabaptift  Teacher,  who  contrary  to 

t  Marginal  Note,  P.  I3^ 


ii  P    R    E    F     A    C    E, 

*'  his  Engagements  to  me,  has  fet  up  the  practice 
'*  of  rebaptifmg,  and  openly  denying  the  Right;  of 
"  Infant  Baptifm.  How  he  will  reconcile  this  to 
'•"'  the  Gentleman,  or  the  Chriftian,  after  he  had 
"  promifed  to  keep  thofe  Notions  private  to  him- 
*'  lelf,  I  know  not."  My  Name  indeed  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  place  referred  to  -,  yet  fror/i  the  Circum- 
fiances  related^  all  agree  that  I  am  pointed  at.  The 
Charge  I  totally  deny  :  For  to  the  hefi  of  my.  Know- 
ledge^ Mr,  F.  Jiever.  required  fuch  an  Engagement  of 
mCy  and  furely  Ijhould  have  been  very  unwife  to  have 
entered  into  it^  unlefs  it  had  been  required  ;  neither 
would  his  making  fuch  a  Requefi^  and  my  Compliance 
with  ity  haye  reflected  any  Honour  or  Credit  on  his 
Piety  or  my  Wifdom.  I  am  at  a  Ipfs  t*o  devife  (if  he 
believes  what  he  has  afferted)  from  what  he  could  ga- 
ther it^  unlefs  it  was  from  my  Expectation  of  travel- 
ling  further  to  the  Eaftward,  and  faying  IhadnoThoUs 
of  fettling  in  thofe  Parts^  &c.  which  1  might  proba- 
bly have  told  him^  as  that  was  the  Cafe.  But  will 
my  faying  I  did  not  expeoi  to  fettle  in  thofe  Parts^  but 
travel  further  to  the  Eaflward^  amount  to  an  En* 
gagement  that  I  would  not  ?  Or  will  it  amount  to  a 
breach  of  Fromije^  if  being  providentially  detained^  I 
have  altered  my  Purpofe  ?  Let  the  Reader  judge. 

If  a  particidar  Relation  of  the  concurring  Circum- 
fiances^which  caufed  me  to  alter  my  Purpofe^  would  not 
have  fwelled  this  Preface  beyond  due  Bounds^  I fbould 
have  related  them  here :  But  if  the  Public  fl^ould  mani- 
feft  a  Defire  to  hear  them^they  may  be  gratified  hereaf- 
ter In  the  mean  Time,  it  is  fufficisnt  for  me  to  have 
maintained  a  goodConJcience  in  thofeRefpe£is^  notwith- 
fianding  a}l  the  ill  UJage  1  have  recnved  from  thcfe^ 


PREFACE. 


Ill 


of  whom  better  "Treatment  might  have  been  reafi'nably 
expelled. 

In  the  Courfe  of  my  Remarks  upon  the  forejnention- 
ed  Difcourfes,  I  have  made  uje  of  fever al  Authors  ; 
to  the  moji  of  which  I  have  given  fufficient  Credit. 
Andfince  Mr.  F.  in  his  Preface  gives  us  no  Reajon 
to  expeSl  any  thing  new  upon  the  fubjc6l  of  Baptifm, 
he  cannot  reafonably  find  fault  with  me^  if  1  Jljould 
produce  nothing  new  in  his  Confutation  :  Especially 
ftnce  the  Arguments  produced  by  him,  have  been  judi- 
cially, and  clearly  refuted  already  by  abler  Hands, 
But  why  this  Entrance  upon  the  Cofitroverjy,  if 
nothing  was  to  be  expe5led  new  ?  Are  his  perfonal 
Engagements  he  talks  of  from  countenancing  an 
*'  Anabaptifl  Minifter*^  fufficient  ?  Or  does  his  In^ 
fluence  exteyid  fo  far,  that  nothing  fhort  of  public  Re- 
monftrances,  could  prevent  the  fuppofedMif chief  -,  that 
would  enjue  in  Confequence  of  the  Countenance  he 
gave  that  Minijter  ?  The  Sermons  preached  (even 
btfore  they  were  printed)  together  with  the  many 
hard  Sentences  thrown  out  by  him  ;  and  his  Afftduity 
amongfi  thofe  he  could  influence,  had  prejudiced  the 
Minds  of  a  great  Number  of  People,  againft  that 
Minified s  Principles  and  Condu5l,  So  that  I  verily 
think,  we  muji  feek  for  fome  other  Motive,  exciting  to 
the  Undertaking,  beftdes  the  pretended  Countenance  he 
gave  a  certain  "  Anabaptift  Minifter* S&pitsiaakm^ : 
And  it  would  be  well  if  amufing  the  Minds  of  unwary 
Readers,  and  to  keep  them  from  forming  theirPrinciples 
from  the  Bible,  was  not  the  impulfive  Caufe, 

I fhall  fubmit  my  EJleem  of  the  Covenant  of  cur 
God  to  the  Reader'' s  Judgment,  as  he  will  find  my 
Senfe  of  it  exprejfed  in  the  following  Pages  :  So  by 

comparing 


Iv 


PREFACE. 


comparing  it  with  Mr.  P— 's  ^enfe  of  the  Covenant ^ 
he  may  judge  which  of  us  thinks  andfpeaks  mojl  con- 
ftftently  and  worthily  of  it.  How  plain  his  Evidence 
for  the  ^rulh  is  ;  and  how  calmly  he  has  treated  the 
Suhje5l^  may  he  better  determined  by  carefully  p'Tufing 
ayid  cowpr.  ring  it  with  the  Bible.  And  now  to  the 
candid  Reader^  1  fubmit  what  is  written  \  dtfring 
the  hleffing  of  him^  whoje  Caufe  thefe  Sheets  are  hum- 
bly defigned  to  promote  ;  and  who  himfelf  was  bap^ 
tized  by  John  in  Jordan. 


Xle        0» 


lII^211^^2S£Sl^l^Sl£Sliil^£i.lS 


The 


3^&^f5®^g^1^l^ 


m  m  m  m  m  m  loi  m  \e>\  m  m  \o\  mm  m  m  m  m  mm^m 


The  Dodrine  of  Believer  s  Baptifmj 
by    Immerfion  only. 


)g()^)^5^5^HIS  defcnfive  piece  makes  itjappear^^ 
)e(^— )^)aC  ance,  not  with  an  expedation  of  en- 
vfv«f  Jf^  tertaining  the  curious  ;  nor  from  aa 
QQwQw  ambitious  defire  of  being  feen  in  pub- 
AMMMM  1}^  .  ^^^  ^Q  remove  the  mafk,  under 
which  the  fcrmons  which  occafioned  it,  came  into 
the  world  :  That  truth  might  appear  in  its  fimple, 
artlefs  drefs  ;  ftrijgt  of  all  thole  fophiftical  arts, 
defigned  to  decoy  the  unwary  reader. 

We  find  in  A6ls  16.  32,  33,  Sc  34. — That  the 
jaylor,  and  all  that  were  in  his  houfe,  had  the  word 
of  the  Lord  fpoken  unto  them  :  After  which  they 
were  baptized,  not  in  his  houfe,  altho'  it  was  about 
midnight,  when  the  ordinance  ofbaptifm  was  ad- 
miniflred  to  them  ;  but  out  of  his  houfe  :  It  is 
probable  in  the  river  near  the  city  of  Fhilippi,  Adls 
i6,  i2j  13,  Jnd  when  he  had  brought  thsm  into  his 
B  koufci, 


(  2  ) 

hcufe^  he  fat  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing 
in  God  with  all  his  houfe.  We  may  learn  from 
hence,  that  the  cuftom  of  the  Apoftles  was  to  bap- 
tize abroad,  out  of  a  houfe,  as  did  John  in  a  river  -, 
and  to  baptize  fuch  who  were  capable  of  being  in- 
ftrtiried,  and  of  behevmg  -,  which  is  evident  by 
the  Jaylor  and  all  his  houfe  rejaycing  together. 
Joy  being  the  effed  of  the  believer's  obedience  in 
baptifm,  which  was  the  cafe  with  the  Eunuch, 
Ad:.  8.  39.  ntid  iz'h  n  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 
water — he  went  on  his  way  rejoycmg.  And  fuch 
who  thus  obey  Chriifj  have  reafon  to  rejoyce  in  his 
per(9n,  offices  and  righieoufneis  i  Whofe  example 
in  this  ordinance  of  baptifm  they  are  enabled  toob- 
ferve,  by  ftepping  into  the  watry-grave.  Which 
example  being  viewed  by  faith,  gives  us  a  lively 
y\t\y  of  Chrift's  death,  burial  and  refurre6lion  y  as 
well  as  our  death  unto  fin,  and  being  raifed  unto 
newnefs  of  life  :  All  which  are  pointed  out  in  the 
mode  of  baptifm  ;  therefore  we  are  buried  with 
hifH  by  baptifm  into  death,  Rom  6  4.  The  mode 
of  baptifm,  which  the  Apoitle  evidently  alludes  to 
here,  is  not  only  pointed  out  5  but  likewife  the 
burial,  and  reluiredtion  of  Chrift,  as  the  head  and 
reprefentative  of  all  his  people  ;  of  which  burial 
and  refurrcclion,  baptifm  is  a  lively  emblem.  Now 
fince  believers  had  a  reprefentative  being  in 
Chrift,  before  they  had  a  perfonal  exiftence  in  the 
world, Eph.  I.  4.-^2  Tim,  i  9.  Surely  the  reafon 
ot  their  being  Chrift's  difciples,  can't  be  becaufe 
they  are  the  children  of  believing  parents,  as  Mr. 
Parfons  alTerts  •,  neither  can  their  good  qualities 
or  moral  duties  be  the  procuring  caufe  of  fuch  a 
favour  :  Confequently  it  mull  be  owing  to  the 

good 


(     3     ) 

good  will  of  a  gracious  God,  in  the  difplay  of  his 
love,  by  choofing  them  in  his  fon,  who  is  God's 
eledl  in  whom  he  delighted,  Ifa.  42  i.  and  with 
whom  he  early  made  a  covenant,  which  covenant 
was  to  be  fealed  with  his  own  blood  :  Hence  we 
have  it.  By  the  blcod  of  thy  covenant  1  have  f em  forth 
thy  prifoners  out  of  the  Pit^  Zech.  9.  1 1.  This  co- 
venant had  certain  conditions  to  be  performed  by 
Chrift,  who  is  termed  the  meffenger  of  the  covenant^ 
Mai.  3.  I.  And  in  confequence  of  the  fulfilment 
of  thefe  conditions  by  Chrift,  the  way  is  open  for 
the  prifoners  to  be  fent  forth  out  of  the  pit  of  ruin, 
and  to  enjoy  all  the  bleflings  and  privileges  of  the 
covenant.  This  covenant  is  that  which  is  ufually 
called  the  covenant  of  grace.— Which,  fays  Mr.  P, 
*'  was  primarily  and  principally  with  theLord  JrTus 
*^  Chrift,  as  the  fecond  Adam,  and  therefore  he  is 
"  called  the  furety  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  ad- 
*'  juft  and  make  up  the  difference  betweenGod  and 
*'  his  people.  But  altho'  the  covenant  of  grace  is 
^'  primarily  made  with  Chrift,  as  the  reprefentativc 
"  of  his  feed,  yet  in  him,  it  is  made  wi.h  believers 
"  or  with  his  {^^d^T  And  thus  the  Affembly  of 
Divines  exprefs  themfelves,  "  The  covenant  of 
*'  grace  was  made  withChrift,  as  the  fecondAdam  ; 
"  and  in  him  with  all  the  ele6l,  as  his  feed." — • 
From  this  view  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  v/e  may 
readily  fee,  the  miftake  of  Mr.  P.  in  affirming 
^'  bap'ifm  to  be  the  initiating  feal  of  the  covenanr 
of  grace."  *  Thus  :  '^  But  when  Chrift  came,  and 
**'  would  introduce  a  new  difpenfation  of  the  cove- 
^'  nant  of  grace,  he  appointed  baptifm  with  water 
*^  to  be  the  feal  of  initiation."  It  baptifm  initiates 
B  2  *  us 

^  P.  36.  and  in  P,  \. 


(      4     ) 

ys  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  then  we  may  thank 
the  minifter  that  baptized  us  ;  or  our  parents  who 
were  the  means  of  it  ♦,  or  ourfelves  who  volunta- 
rily complied  with  it  :  And  not  Chrift  who  is  the 
mediator  of  that  covenant.  In  the  9th  page,  re- 
ferring to  Adts  10.  45^ — 48,  he  fays,  "  But  Feter 
*'  virtually  teach,  s  us,  that  water  baptifm  is  the 
*'  door  of  admiffion  into  the  vifible  church  now, 
^'  as  circumcifion  was  formerly." 

It  may  be  obferved,  that  Peter  don't  pay  any 
regard  there  to  the  old  admiffion  into  rhe  Jcwijh 
church,  by  circumcifion  :  But  fpeaks  of  the  Jews 
admiffion  into  the  gofpel  church-ftate  ;  and  now 
finding  the  fame  quaUlicattons  in  rhe  Gentiles^ 
which  were  required  of  rhem  before  baptifm,  viz. 
faith  and  repentance,  he  alks,  who  can  forbicj 
water  ?  &c. 

I  WOULD  further  remark,  If  baptifm  is  a  door 
into  the  gofpel  church,  in  the  fame  {^v\^t^  and  ta 
be  adminiitred  to  the  like  fubjeds  ;  as  circumci- 
fion was  to  the  Jewijh  church  ;  we  mud  make  the 
church  national  ;  and  children  as  well  as  adult s^ 
and  unbelievers  as  well  as  believers^  muft  have  a 
right  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  gofpel  church, 
confequently  to  the  Lord^s  fnpper^  that  being 
one  of  its  great  privileges.  For  under  the 
former  difpenfation,  the  paJTover^  with  the  other 
privileges  of  that  church,  belonged  to  the  mem- 
bers of  it,  whether  young  or  old  \  unlefs  prohibi- 
ted by  reafon  of  fome  ceremonial  pollution.  And 
this  is  carrying  matters  to  the  length  which  they 
prevailed,  when  Injant  Baptifm  fiift  took  its  rife. 


SeeRee's  upon  baptifm,*  where  he  quotes  Cyprian^s 
own  v/ords  for  communicating  infants.  This  Cy- 
prian is  one  of  the  three,  whom  Mr.  P.  mentions, 
to  prove  the  antiquity  of  Infant  Baptifm.  Mr. 
Stennet  quotes  Sukerus,  aflerting  the  fame,  f  "  It 
"  was  thought  fit  in  like  manner  to  give  it  (viz. 
"  the  Lord's  fupper)  to  infants,  after  the  intro- 
^'  dudion  of  Infant  Baptifm,'" 

Let  us  now  take  notice  of  Mr.  P — 's  argu- 
ments for  Infant  Baptifm.  The  firft  is,  "  If  the 
''  infants  of  vifible  behevers  do  alfo  belong  to  the 
"  vifible  church  themfelves,  then  they  are  to  be 
"  baptized  -,  but  the  infants  of  vifible  believers 
*'  are  alfo  members  of  the  vifible  church  them- 
*'  felves  :  Therefore  the  infants  of  vifible  believers 
*'  are  to  be  baptized."  I  thmk  this  fylogifm  would 
comport  much  better  with  fcripture,  had  it  been 
formed  thus  :  If  the  mfants  of  vifible  believers  do 
not  belong  to  the  vifible  church  themfelves,  then 
they  are  not  to  be  baptized  ;  but  the  infants  'of 
vifible  believers  are  not  members  of  the  vifible 
church  themfelves  :  Therefore  the  infants  of  vifi- 
ble believers  are  not  to  be  baptized.  This  is  ob- 
vious, both  from  their  not  having  the  badge  of 
memberfhip  put  upon  them  ;  and  their  not  being 
fuch  in  a  qualified  fenfe  \  altho'  Mr.  P.  fays  they 
^re  fo  in  a  qualified  fenfe.  "  As  a  fon  born  in  the 
*'  army  is  the  King's  foldier,  or  a  child  born  in  the 
'•  King's  dominions  is  the  King's  fubjed,  tho'  the 
"  former  is  not  adually  inlifted,  nor  the  latter 
"  formerly  declared  to  be  fo."  I  defire  to  know 
from  whence  thofe  qualifications  do  arife,  which 

make 

f  p.  no.  t  P-  86. 


(  6  ; 

make  the  infants  of  vifible  believers,  members  of 
the  vifible  church.  Are  they  from  their  parents  ? 
No,  for  we  find  a  profcfiion  of  faith  and  repen- 
tance required,  before  even  the  fign  of  member- 
fhip,  or  inirodudlion  into  the  vifible  church  v^^as  to 
be  granted.  Ads  i.  ^S.  &  8.  37.  Now  if  they 
were  members  in  a  qualified  fenfe,  without  the 
prerequifite  juft  mentioned,  then  doubtlefs  they 
would  have  a  »'ight  to  the  badge  of  their  member- 
fliip  :  But  they  have  no  right  to  the  badge  of 
mcmberfhip,  without  a  profefiion  of  faith  &  repen- 
tance, as  is  evident  from  the  pafi^ages  juft  quoted  : 
Therefore  they  are  not  members  in  a  qualified 
fenfe.  I  would  enquire,  whether  they  are  mem- 
bers in  a  qualified  lenTe,  from  their  capacity  to  re- 
ceive the  (ign  of  memberfhip  ?  The  Heathens  are 
capacitated  for  the  fame  ;  fo  they  are  from  this,  as 
much  members  of  the  vifible  cliuich  in  a  qualified 
fenfe,  as  the  infants  of  vifible  believers.  Again, 
does  their  memberlliip  fpring  from  an  inherent 
principle  of  holinefs,  with  which  they  are  born, 
the  impovement  of  which,  would  caufe  them  to 
grow  more  and  more  in  grace,  until  they  fhould 
arrive  to  a  fufHcient  degree  of  holinefs,  exclufive 
ot  the  work  of  regeneration  ?  This  is  arminian- 
ilm — bad  divinity — iangerous  dcclrine — and  in- 
confident  wi.h  orthodoxy. 

Yet  this  ftems  to  be  his  opinion  from  the  ev= 
amples  produced,  if  they  make  any  thing  to  his 
purpofe  :  For  it  mufl  be  granted  that  a  fon  born 
in  the  army  has  all  the  parts  of  a  man,  or  is  a  man 
compleat  as  to  his  m.embers,  tho'  not  perfed  in 
his   groi\-th  and  ft^ength,  for   the    fervice  of  his 

kine. 


{■  1  ) 

king.     And  as  a  child  born  in  the  King's  dodli- 
nions  is  the  King's  fubjed,  by  realbn  ot  his  pecu^ 
liar  right  in   him  as  belonging  to  his   kingdom  ; 
and  having  never  forfeited  his   natural  right  to 
the   privileges    thereof;   confeqiiently    Vvhcn    he 
grows  to  the   ftature  of  a  man,  by  virtue   of  his 
engagement  of  allegiance,  he  is  put  in  a  capacity 
of  being  advanced  to,  and   made  partaker  of  the 
honours,  profits  and  immunities  of  the  kingdom  : 
And  that  without  any  internal  change  wrought  in 
him,  feeing  he  was   born  a  fubjedt  in  a  qualified 
fenfe.     But  furely  Mr.  P.  will  not  conclude  that 
perfons  unrenewed  have  any  right  to,  or  capacity 
for  the  enjoyments  and  employments  of  Chnft's 
fpiritual  kingdom  ;  unlefs  after  all  his  zeal  for  the 
dodlrines  of  grace,  he  has  a  mind  to    give  up  the 
important  dodrine  of  regeneration  \  and  fubtlitute 
in  its  ttead,  that  which  is  fo  much  more  ag:eeable 
to  the  carnal  mind,  viz.  juftification  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law  :  And  fo  fubvert  the  very  foundation, 
tipon  which  he  himfelf  profefTed  to  fettle  in  New- 
bury.     If  Mr.  P.  does  not  like  thefe  hints,  he  mud 
blame  himfelf  for  not  being  more  guarded  in  his 
comparifons  •,  or  for  engaging  in  a  caufe  that  re- 
quires fuch  methods  to  fupport  it. 

Says  Mr.  P.  what  is  mainly  before  me  upon 
this  argument,  is  to  prove,  "  That  infants  ofvifi- 
^'  ble  believers  or  church  members,  are  alfo  them- 
"  felves  members  of  the  vifible  church,  and  there- 
"  fore  ought  to  have  the  feal  of  induction  put 
"  upon  them." 

It  may  not  be  amifs  to  refer  the  reader  to  fe- 
veral  pafiages  in  Mr,  P-^'s  fermons  upon  bap- 

tifm  i 


(     8     ) 

tifin  i  and  then   leave  him  to  judge  of  his  meati- 
ing.      In  p.  6.  he  fa:ys,  "  That   baptifm  is,  by    di- 
vine appointment,  the   badge  of  all  the  difciples 
of  Chnft  •,  and   the   intiodu(5lion  into   the  vifible 
church." — In    p.  7.  "  Baptifm    is    the  feal  of  in- 
dudion  into  the  vifible  church. '^ — "  And    hence 
Chrifl,  having  received  power  from    the  Father, 
gave  a  commifTion   to  his  apoftks,   and  to  all   his 
ordinary    minifters,   to  admit    his    dilciples    into 
the  church,  by   the  facred  rite  of  baptifm    v^ith 
water."     In  p.  9.   it  is  called  "  the  feal  of  intro- 
dudion  into  the  chriltian  church" — ^and  "  the  door 
of  adrniflion  into  the  vifible  church."—"  It  was 
inftituted — as   the  ordinary   medium  of  gather- 
ing and  preferving  the  church."     In  p.  11.  "  O- 
thers,  by  their  appointment,  admitted  members 
into  the  church,  by  that  folemn  riie" — 1.  e.  bap^ 
tifm.     In  p.  13.  "  The  infants  of  vifible  believers 
are    alfo  members  of  the  vifible  church   them- 
felves  :   Therefore  the  infants  of  vifible  believers, 
are  to  be  baptiied  :"    In  the  fame  page.  "  So  the 
children  of  vifibld  believers  are   members  of  the 
vifible  church,  as  foon  as  they  are  born   into  the 
world,  before   they  have   the   badge  of  member- 
fhip  put  upon   them."     In  p.   14.  "  All  the  ad- 
miifions  we  read  of  (into  the  vifible  church)  fince 
baptifm   was  a  divine   inflitution,   were   by  this 
token  or  feal  of  the  covenant. — P.  23.  "  Children 
come  into  a  vifible  church-ftate,  in   the  right  of 
their  parents." — P.  42.  "  It  always  has  been  the 
padtice  of  the  church,  to  initiate  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers, by  baptifm." 

From  thefe  quotations,  with  others  of  the  like 
kind,  defignedly  omitted,  we  may  fee  the  difficulty 

of 


(     9     ) 

of  reconciling  what  is  alTc-'-ted.  For  according 
to  thefe  citations,  being  members  of  the  vifible 
church,  gives  a  ri^jhc  to  bapcifm  :  And  bap;ifm  is 
that,  by  which  perfons  are  introduced  into  the  vi- 
fible church,  and  fo  become  members. 

From  hence  I  would  argue,If  being  members  of 
the  vifible  church,  gives  a  right  to  baptifm  ;  then 
none  but  fuch  as  are  member^  of  the  vifible  church, 
have  a  right  to  baptiim  :  But  fuch  as  are  not  mem- 
bers of  the  vifible  church,  have  a  right  to  baptifm  : 
Therefore  being  membe.'S  of  the  vifible  church, 
don't  give  a  right  to  bautifrii.  Again,  *'  If  bap- 
tifm  is  an  induction  into  the  vifible  church,  then 
none  but  fuch  as  are  bapcized  can  be  members  of 
the  vilible  church  -,  but  baptifm  is  an  induction 
into  the  vifible  church  :'  Therefore  none  but  fuch 
as  are  bapcized,  can  be  members  of  the  vifible* 
church."  The  confefifion  of  taith  put  out  by  the 
AfTembly  of  Divines,  in  chap  2S'  informs  us,  that 
"  Baptifm  is  a  facrament  of  the  New  Teftament, 
"  ordained  by  JefusChrift,  foi  the  folemn  admiflion 
"of  the  party  baptized  into  the  vifible  church." 

Now  if  thus  they  are  admitted  by  baptifm,  then 
it  can't  be  as  Mr.  P  afferts,  rhat  they  are  in  the 
church  before  bamifm.  In  fliort,  you  fee,  as  jull 
obferved,  when  it  fuits  him,  being  in  the  vifi- 
ble church  gives  a  right  to  baptifm  ♦,  and  then  a-- 
gain,  when  it  ferves  his  turn,  ''  baptifm  brings 
perfons  mto  the  vifible  church."  Thus  felf^con- 
tradidlory  he  fpeaks. 

To  gain  his  point  he  gives  us  a  defcription  of  the 

covenant  of  works,  and  of  the   covenant  of  grace. 

C  J 


(     xo     ) 

I  am  pleafed  with  his  defcription  of  the  cove- 
nant of  works  ',  but  am  at  a  lofs  to  know  what  he 
means  by  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  he  treats  ic. 
The  AfTembly  of  Divines,  in  anfwer  to  thisqiieft- 
ion,  ••'  With  whom  was  the  covenant  of  grace 
made  ?"  I  think  fpeak  to  purpofe,  thus  -,  "  The 
"  covenant  of  grace  was  made  with  Chrift,  as  the 
"  fecond  Adam  j  and  in  him  with  all  the  ele6t,  as 
"  his  leed."  *  AndMr.  P— 's  words  are  ;  "  This 
"  covenant  of  grace  was  primarily  and  principally 
"  vvqrh  iheLordJerusChriit,  as  the  fecond  Adam. — 
"  Yer,  In  Him,  ic  is  made  with  believers  or  with 
"  his  feed." 

When  he  is  fpeaking  concerning  the  covenant 
of  v/orks,  he  tells  us,  the  blelTings  offered  in  that 
covenant  to  Adam^  aiid  his  fetd,  would  have  been 
fecured  to  them  had  he  continued  in  his  integrity. 
Now  I  would  afk.  Since  Chrift  as  a  public   head, 
has  continued  in  his  integrity,  and  fulfilled  all  the 
conditions,  properly  fo  called,  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  fo  that  he  fays,  Ihave  finijhed  the  work  which 
then  gaveft  me  to  do  ;  whether  the  bltflings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  of  which  Chrift  is  the  head  ; 
are  not  as  fecure  as  thofe  blcffings  of  the  covenant 
of  works,  of  which //i^;«  was  the  head  ;  fuppofing 
him    to    have    maintained    his    Integrity  ?  If  the 
bleffings  of  the  covenant   of  grace  are  not,   then 
Chrift,  as  a  public  head,  muft  be  inferior  to  Adani^ 
as  a  public  head  ;  which  I  fuppofe  even  Mr.  P. 
wo'.iid  not  choofe  to  aifert.     It  they  are,  then  the 
blcffings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  fliall  be  granted 
to  Chrift*s  feed  \  and  it  is  impoffible   for  Chrift's 

*  Larger  Catechifm,  P.   64. 


(  JI  ) 

feed  to  break  the  covenant  of  grace,  fo  a*?  to  be 
ejefled  from  it,  as  Mr.  P.  infinuates  ;  where  he 
fays,  "  Hence  they  are  faid,  to  enter  into  cove- 
"  nant  ;  to  keep  covenant  ;  to  break  the  cove- 
"  nant  ;  and  fuch  like  expreffions ;"  quoting  Pfal. 
50.  5.  and  25.  lo.  and  Levit.  zb.  15. 

I  WOULD  obferve,  by   taking  thefe  texts  toge- 
ther, as   here  expreffed,  ftrangeiy   confounds  the 
Covenant  of  grace,  and  the  covenant  of  works.    By 
reading  the  26th  chapter  oi  Levit.  we  may  readily 
fee,  the  covenant  mentioned  in  the  J5th  ver.  is  not 
a  covenant  of  grace,  but  chiefly  refpeds  temporal 
things. — Immediately  upon  fo  quoting  this  text  in 
Levit.  as  to  make  his  readers  believe  the  covenant 
of  grace  is  there  meant — he  adds^"And  parents 
"  that  are  believers,  have  their  children  taken  into 
*'  covenant  with  them."     By  which  it  appears  that 
he  would  have  us  think,  that  all  the    children  of 
believing  parents,  are  with  their  parents,  taken  in- 
to the  covenant  of  grace.     But  before  we  can  be- 
lieve that,  we  miuft  be  convinced  either  that  IJhiiael 
was  taken  into  the  covenant  of  grace  with  Abra- 
ham \  and  Phineas  and  Hophni   with    their  father 
Eli  ;  and  Ahfalom  and  Ammon  with  David,  and  fo 
faved  ;  and  that  all  the  children  of  believes    are 
better  than  the  children  of  unbelievers  :  Or,  that 
perfons  may  be  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  en- 
joy its  bieflings,  fuch  as,  effecfluai  calling,  j unifica- 
tion, adoption  and   fan£liflcatian,  &c.  and  after- 
wards be  finally  loft  by  breaking  the  covenant. 

In  p.  17.  after  telling  us  what  the  Antinomians 

will  objed  and  fay  (and   by  his  own  concefTions  ic 

C  ^  is 


r     12  ; 

is  judged  be  makes  himfelf  one)  he  fays.  All  "  be- 
"  long  either  to  the  firli  or  the  fe(  ond  Adam.  It 
*'  IS  impofiible  fdr  a  perfon  to  be  under  both  ccve- 
*'  nants  at  once  "  I  would  here  afk,  how  rhofe 
who  belong  to  the  covenant  of  grace  can  break  it, 
fo  as  to  be  finally  eje(ftcd  ?  For  if  believer^  have 
their  chikirt  n  taken  jnro  this  covenant  with  ihtm, 
thrn  they  muft  be  laved  ;  or  find  fome  wav  to  break 
jt,  fj  as  ro  be  utt(  rly  cad  out  ot  it  :  But  we  have 
juli  fhevvn  that  feme  were  out  of  it,  V'Z  IjLmael, 
J^btneas.  Hophni^  .  .mmcm  and  /ihfaiom  \  hence  they 
muft  triier  never  have  been  in  it,  or  have  eje6led 
thcmfeUes.  From  hence  the  inconfiftency  of 
this  vvn'er  is  very  c  vidtnt  •,  and  will  ever  appear, 
ijnlefs  he  rerrads  what  he  has  affiimed,  that  be- 
lievers children  are  taktn  with  them  into  the  co- 
venant of  grac<,  by  virtue  ot  the  r  pareni\s  faith  ; 
ond  that  they  are  able  to  break  the  covenant  of 
grace,  &c  • — ^uch  ii:cc  rififtercieF,  are  no  fmall 
proot,  thrt  he  wanted  fcriprure  to  maintain  his 
Icheme  :  And  a  principle  which  muft  be  fupport- 
ed  without  Icripture  for  its  foundation,  ought  to 
be  rejcdled  by  ail  the  lovers  of  truth.  • 

Vv'e  are  informed,*  "  That  outward  privileges 
**  avail  nothing  to  fpecial  grace,  any  furthtr  than 
"means  ofGod's  appon  ting  "  Let  it  be  oblerved, 
that  Infant  B^pti'Jm  is  not  appointed  by  God  •,  fo 
is  not  to  be  reckoned  among  the  means  ot  grace. 

We     now    come     to    obferve    what     he     fays 

iip^n     the     yibrahamatical    c  »venanc.  -f      "The 

^b'^aba?}7f.i'cnl   covenant,    includ  rn;    the    ^ft^d    of 

vifible  believers,  is  the  covenaiu  ci  grace."     This 

^  he 

*  P.   18.  t  P.  18. 


(    .13     ) 

'he  endeavours  to  prove,  and  concludes  "  that  none 
who  have  any  tolerable  underftanding  of  the  two 
covenants,  and  read  with  unprejudiced  attention, 
can  doubt  whether  it  be  the  covenant  of  grace.*' 
Let  the  unprejudiced  reader  judge  for  himielf, 
after  obferving 

T.  According  to  the  Aflembly's  larger  cate- 
chifm,  "  The  covenant  of  grace,  was  made  with 
Chrift,  as  the  fecond  Adam  ♦,  and  in  him  with  all 
the  eledt,  as  his  feed.  Gal.  3.  ib.  Rom.  5.  15.  to 
the  end.  How  does  this  agree  with  making  Abra- 
ham the  head  of  the  covenant  ^  2  None  of  the  de- 
fcendents  of  Ada^'i  were  ever  faved  out  of  the  co- 
venant of  grace  ;  but  a  number  of  them  were  be- 
lievers, who  were  not  included  in  Abraham's  cove- 
nant :  Therefore  they  could  not  be  faved,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  P.  becaufe  the  covenant  of  grace  was 
made  with  Abraham.  Where  then  is  Adam^  Abel^ 
Enoch  and  Noah^  who  were  before  Abraham^s  day, 
with  many  others  ?  3.  None  can  be  loft  who  are 
included  in  the  covenant  of  grace  :  But  all  Abra- 
ham^s  natural  feed  were  included  in  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham^  which  Mr.  P.  affirms  to  be 
a  pure  covenant  of  grace  -,  therefore  according  to 
Jiim,  none  oi  Abraham^ s  natural  feed  are  loft.  This 
as  evidently  contradi6ls  the  fcripture,  as  to  fay 
none  before  Abraham's  day  were  faved,  becaufe 
not  included  in  Abraham^  covenant,  altho'  they 
were  righteous  perfons. 

To  unlock  this  riddle  we  want  the  fame  key 
which  the  excellent  Mr.  Morgan  mentions  in  his 
firft  book  againftMr.  FinUy  j  *  which  he  calls  Mr, 

Finky^s^ . 

*  P.  18. 


(     H     ) 

Finley%  and  Mr.  FlavePs,     "  They  could  neither 
"  be  jultificd  nor  condemned  in  this  hfe  :  Juftifi- 
"  ed  they  could  not  be,  for  they  were  out  oj^  Abra- 
"  ham^s  covenant  ;  condemned  they  could  not  be, 
"  for  they  were  righteous  perlons.    But  this  is  not 
"  all ;  in  the  world  to  come  they  could  neither  go  to 
"  heaven  nor  hell  :   To  heaven  they  could  not  go, 
"  becaufe  out  q{  Abraham! s  covenant  -,  to  hell  they 
"could   not  go,  becaufe  juflified.     But   flill  it  is 
*'-  more  wonderful  to  confider,  that  they  muft    be 
"  fully  [and  perfonally]  juftified,  and  fully   con- 
"  demned  at  the  fame  time  :   Fully   juftified,   be- 
''  caufe  the  fcripture  fays  as  much  ;  fully  condemn- 
*'  ed,  becaufe  out  of  the  covenant  made  with  Ahra- 
'*  ham, — What  an  odd  fhaped  covenant  of  grace 
*'  is  this,  that  fome    believers  or  gracious  perfons 
"  muft  be  left  out  ;  and  fome  carnal  unregenerate 
"  ones  taken   m  !"  For  Mr.  P.    affirms,  that  all 
church  members  and    their  feed,  are  in   the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  * 

To  confirm  his  aflertion,  he  produces  this 
paflage  •,  "  1  will  eftablifh  my  covenant  between 
me  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  in  their  ge- 
nerations, for  an  everlafting  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee  and  ihy  feed  after  thee."  This  prom^ife 
refpedls  either  all  /Jhraham's  natural  legitimate 
feed,  or  all  his  fpiritual  feed,  or  both.  If  all  his 
natural  leed  are  meant,  then  this  covenant  muft 
refpe6t  temporal  things  and  external  privileges  ; 
for  we  can't  fuppofe  all  his  natural  feed  were  fav- 
ed;  which  would  have  been  the  care,if  the  blefilngs 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  are  pointed  out  in  it  for 

all 

*  P.  i8. 


(     '5     ) 

all  his  natural  feed.  If  his  fpi ritual  feed  are  meant, 
then  we  may  readily  find  out  who  they  are,  viz. 
fiich  who  have  faith  in  Chrift.  ^hey  which  be  of 
faith  are  hleffed  with  faithful  Abraham.  If  ye  be, 
Chrift'* 5^  then  are  ye  Abrahain's  feed  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the pro7nife.  Gal.  3.  9. — 29. — This  promife 
you  have  in  Gen.  12.  3.  or  17.  7. — Buc  if  this  co- 
venant js^Es^nts  both  his  natural  &  Ipirirual  feed,  ^^ 
then  it  muft  be  a  mixt  covenant,  conijfling  of  fpi- 
ritual  and  temporal  bleffings. 

Now  judge,  whether  it  is  proper  to  call  the  /f- 
hrahamatical  covenant  a  pure  covenant  of  grace,  or 
not.     In   the  21ft  page  we  have  it,  *'  The   grant 
in  the  Abrahamatical  covenant,  made  to  his  feed, 
has  never  been  repealed."     Upon  this  in  the  lan- 
guage  of  Mr.   Morgan^  I  would  obferve,  "  That 
"  law  which  gave  being  to  infant  memberlhip  and 
"  circumcifion,  is  abolifhed  by  divme  authority,  as 
"  a  part  of  the  former  adminillration  \  this  mull' 
"  be  granted,  or  elfe  circumcifion  is  yet  in   force. 
"Now   methinks  it  is  a  felf-evident   truth,  that 
"  when  a  law  which  gives  being  to  an  ordinance 
"  or  appointment,  is  abrogated,  that  ordinance  or 
'*  appomtment  is  repealed.     Again,  that  very  co- 
"  venant  adminiflration,  whereby  the  Jewijh  na- 
"  tion  was  taken  into  a  vifible  church-ilate,  is  now 
"  waxed   old,    and  vanifhed,  Heb,  8.  8,  9.     And 
"  further,  that  church-ftate  wherein  infants  were 
"  admitted  as  members  and  materials,  is  now  a- 
"  boliflied.  Since  then  we  make  appear  from  fcrip- 
"  ture,  that  the  fame  divine  authority,  which  gave 
"  being  to  every  particular,  which  you  infift  upon 
*'  in  defence  of  your  principles,  the  fame  divine 

^'  authority 


'     i6 


"  authority  hath  now  difannulled  every  one  of 
*'  them,  ic  remains  therefore,  for  you  to  produce 
"  exprcfs  fcriptures  to  prove  that  infants  are  the 
''  fubjeds  of  baptifm,  and  members  in  the  New 
*'  Teftament  church,  otherwife  they  have  no  right 
*'  there  by- virtue  of  any  former  appointment." 

Mr.  p.  fays,  *  the  reafon  why  the  Abrahamalicat 
covenant  is  called  everlafting^  is  becaufe  it  was  the 
covenant  of  grace.  For  an  anfwer  to  which.,  fee 
Jer.  31.  3[,  32,  33.  and  Heb.  8.  7,  8,  9.  For  if 
that  fir  ft  covenant  had  hem  faultlefs^  then  JJoould  no 
place  hoive  been  jound  for  the  fecond^  &c.  nnd  ver. 
i'^.  In  that  he  faith ^  a  new  covenant  he  hath  made^ 
the  fir  11  old  \  now  that  which  decay cth  and  waxeth 
old^  is  ready  to  vaniflo  away.  By  thefe  facred  pafTa- 
ges  it  is  readily  feen,  that  the  ^brahamic-covcndinz 
in  all  Its  parts  was  not  to  be  everlafiing^  taking  the 
word  everlajiing  in  its  ftri(^t  fenfe. — But  by  the 
word  everlaftiiig  there,  underftand  to  the  end  of 
the  former  adminiflration  :  Thus  it  was  with  the 
Frieft^s  office,  it  fhould  be  AarorCs  and  his  fon^s  for 
a  perpetual  or  everlafting  ftatute^Kxod.  29.  9  :  And 
fo  it  was  with  the  facrifices,  it  {\\b\\  he  a  perpttml 
fiatute.  Lev.  3.  17:  And  fo  with  the  atonement 
made  once  a  year,  Itfhallbean  everlafiingftatuie^ 
Lev.  \6.  34. 

Nay,  if  that  covenant  was  not  abrogated, .then 
circumcifion  would  Hill  be  in  force  ;  but  circumci^ 
Jion  is  not  in  force  :  Therefore  that  covenant  is 
abrogated.  Say  fome,  baptifm  comes  in  the  room 
of  circumcifion.     But  I  deny  it  ^  for  the  fcripture 

no 

*  P.  20, 


(     17     ) 

no  where  informs  us  it  does.  The  next  remark 
is  upon  the  olive  tree,  *  alluding  to  Rem, 
"l£.  16,  17.  For  if  the  firjl-fruit  be  bclj\  the 
lump  is  alfo  holy  j  and  if  the  root  he  holy,  fo  are  the 
branches.  And  tf  J  erne  of  the  branches  he  broken 
offy  ^c.  There  "  by  firfi  fruits  the  firft 
*'  converts  among  the  Jfws  under  the  gofpel 
"  difpenfation,  are  meant  *,  it  being  ufual 
"  with  the  apoftle  fo  to  call  diem  ;  fee  Kom.  ib. 
"  5.  I  Cor.  16.  15.  And  an  aliufion  is  to  the  offer- 
*'  ing  of  iht  firft  fruits  to  the  Lord,  and  ihe  two 
^^  wave  loaves,  lutvk,  23.  4 — 17,  whereby  the 
"  whole  lump  was  fandtified,  for  after  ufe  though- 
**  out  the  year  following,"  &c.  f  Hence  thofe 
perfons  who  were  firll  converted  among  the  Jew^ 
were  prefages  of  the  whole  body  who  fhould  here- 
after be  called  in,  when  hclinejs  Jloould  he  wriitcn 
upon  the  hells  of  the  horfes^  Zech.  14.  20,  21.  And 
the  branches  broken  off  were  fuch,  as  were  left  out 
of  the  gofpel  church  gathered  among  them  ;  into 
which  gofpel  chuich,  ihtGentiles  were  grafted,  and 
not  into  the  Jtwifh  national  church.  Hence  the 
root  and  fatnefs  which  they  partook  of,  are  not  the 
privileges  of  the  Jewi/h  national  church  ;  but  the 
privileges  of  the  new  teftament  church,  of  which 
Chrift  is  the  root  ox  foundation  fi one  :  And  believ- 
ers are  the  materials,  or  lively  fi  ones  built  up  a  fpi- 
ritual  houfe^  Eph.  2.  20.  1  Pet.  2.  5.  Now  the 
materials  which  formed  the  new  teflament  church, 
were  lively  ftones,  who  were  fo  made  by  the  fpirit 
of  God  ;  and  the  preiequifite  to  any  perfon*s  be- 
ing received  into  this  church,  was  faith,  or  a  pro- 
felTion  of  it,  Mark  16.  16.  and  Ads  8.  37.  Which 
D  plainly 

*  P,  22.  t  E>r*  Gill  in  Loc. 


(     iS     ) 

plainly  (hews  us,  that  infants  were  not  the 
materials  of  the  new  teftament  church  at  firft. 
And  I  would  ad^,  by  what  connmand  they  are 
now  brought  in:o  the  church  ?  By  God's  com- 
mand ?  No.  Hence  I  muil  conclude  it  to  be  a 
mere  human  invention, without  benefit  to  the  child, 
or  command  of  God.  This  con  fide  red /the  fallacy 
of  this  aflertion  is  readily  feen,  *  *'  That  children 
*'  come  into  the  vifibie  church-ftate,  in  the  right  of 
*'  their  parents,&c. — and  continue  members  of  the 
*'  vifiole  ch'jrch,  unlefs  by  their  own  adlual  fins, 
*'  they  cut  themfelves  oft."  Children  can't  as 
formerly  under  the  old  adminiftration,  be  brought 
into  the  church  by  their  parents,  in  obedience  to 
a  divine  command  ;  becaufe  there  is  no  command 
for  it  now.  A  profefTion  of  faith  is  required  of 
the  fubjedls  themfelves,  before  they  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  chrillian  church  :  But  it  was  not 
fo  wiih  the  Jewijb  church,  under  the  former  dif- 
penfation. 

The  next  thing  to  be  confidered,  is,  f  "  The 
''  infants  of  vifible  believers,  or  fuch  as  are  mem- 
"  bers  of  the  vifible  church,  are  difciplesotChrift." 
How  does  this  agree  with  what  Chrifl:  fays,  J  If 
any  ?nan  come  to  me^  and  hate  not  his  fat  her  ^  and 
mother^  ana  wife^  and  children^  and  brethren,  and 
fflers^  yea^  and  his  own  life  alJOy  he  cannot  he  my  dif 
ciple. — And  whcfoever  doth  not  hear  his  crofs  and 
ccme  after  me^  cannot  he  my  difciple. — So  likewift^ 
whofoever  he  be  of  you^  that  forfaketh  not  all  that  he 
hathy  he  cannot  he  my  dijcipk  ?  He  grounds   his 

aflertion 

♦  P.  23.        t  P.  24.        t  Luke  14.  26,  2^—Zh 


(     19     ) 

afTertion  upon  the  commiflion,  *  and  to  eftabllfh  it, 

quotes  Gal.  3.  8,  9. — Upon   which    quotation   I 

woqld  obferve,  that   the  apoftle  there  alludes  to 

that  covenant  in  Gen.  12.  3.  which  was  renewed 

in  the    i7th   chap,  to  underftand  which,  fee  Gal. 

3.16.  Now  toAbrahayn  and  his  feed  were  the  promifes 

made.     He  faith  not^and  to  feeds ^  as  of  many  \  hut  as 

9f  ons^  and  to  thy  feed^  which  is  Chrifl. — i\nd   in 

ver.  9.     So  then  they  which  be   of  fait  h^  are  huffed 

with  faithful  /ihraham      And  before  we  are  to  be 

reckoned  his  feed,  we  mutt  be  believers  in  Chrift, 

ver.  29.   And  if  ye  he  Chrift^s^  then  are  ye  Abraham*  s 

feed^  and  heirs  according  to  the  prcmije.     From  thefe 

t€xts,  we  may  fee,  the  promifed   blefTings  of  the 

covenant  of  grace,  were   not  defi^ned  for  Abra-' 

ham's  natural  feed  as  fuch      But  for   him  and  all 

hia  fpiritual  feed  ;  which  feed  may  be  known,  by 

their  faith  on  Chrift,  in  whom  all  Ipiritual  blefTings 

are.  Col.  i.  19.    For  it pleafed  the  Father,  that  in 

him  fhould  all  fulnefs  dwell. — Who  is  the  mediator  of 

n  better  covenant^  which  was  eflahlifhtd  upon  better 

promifes,  Heb   8.  6.     This  is  the  covenant  of  grace 

which  has  taken  place,  and  fhines  with  fuch  clear- 

nefs,  that  it  dazzles  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  adhere 

to  the  old  covenant,  fpoken  of  in  Heb.  8.  13. 

This  new  covenant,  the  minifters  of  Chrift  are 
to  teach  all  nations,  and  (hew  wherein  its  fu- 
perior  excellency  lies  :  And  when  they  are  fo 
taught,  that  they  believe  on  Chrift  who  is  /jbra^ 
ham*s  feed,  to  whom  the  promifes  are.  Gal.  3.  \  6. 
and  who  is  the  head  of  the  covenant  ;  then  they 
are  to  be  baptized,  which  is  according  to  the  com- 
D  2  m.ffion, 

*  Matth.  28.  19,  20. 


C    20   ; 

mifiion,  Go  and  teach  all  nations^  Sec.     "  The  com- 
"  miffion  is,  (fays  he  *j  to  make  all  nations  dilci- 
"  plcs,  rhac   were  willing    to    enter  into  Chriil's 
"  Ichool  *'     Let  it  be  obltrved,  that  the  dilcples 
mud  be  willing  to  enter  into  Chnft's  fchool.     Can 
this  be  faid  of  infanf.,  who  are  incapable    of  in- 
ftrudtion,  or  manift-fting    aiy  willingnefs  to  enter 
into  Chrift's  fchool  ?  But  in  the  fame  page,  1  am 
forry  to  find  hmi  inverting   the   very  order  of  the 
fame  commifijon,  and   vntually  denying  what   he 
juft   aiTirmed  •,    thus,  "  And   the    firlt    thing   the 
*'  apuiVics  and  miniflcrs  of  Chrill  have  in  charge, 
**  is  to  baptize  unJ  teach."     Thus  you  fee  how  he 
twifts,  turns  and  changes  the   order  of  the   com- 
miffion,  to  mai<.e  good  his  pra(5lice.      'I  enets  which 
can  only  be  vindicated    by  luch  unrighteous   me- 
thods as  thefe,  in  my  judgment,  refled  no  great 
honour  upon  the   miniltcrs   engaged    to  fupport 
thtm. 

I  SHALL  here  take  liberty  to  quote  Mr.  Stennet, 
upon  Chriirs  commifTion  to  baptize,  -f  with  fome 
alterations.  Mr.  P — 's  notion  on  this  text  feems 
to  be, ''  that  here  is  a  general  command  lo  difciple 
''  all  nations  ;  and  then  the  way  to  execute  it, 
*'  particularly  expreffed,  firft  by  baptizing,  and 
"  then  by  reaching  :  So  that  according  to  him, 
'*  thofe  are  difciples  who  are  baptized,  tho'  they 
"  have  never  been  fa'-ighr,  nor  are  yet  capable  of 
"  Inltrudion  ;  and  he  fecms  to  lay  a  great  firefs 
"  on  this  f'jr  infant  baptifm,  therefore  I  fliall  anf- 

''  wer  it  the  more  lar^elv. i.   I  fball  deny  that 

*'  any  can  be  made  aifciples  without  being  taught, 

*'  till 

*  P.  25.  t  Stennet  againft  lluflen,  p.  16,  17. 


(  21  ) 

"  till  an  Inflance  from  the  holy  fcriptnre  be  pro- 
*'  duced  of  fome  difciple  made  by  Chrift,  or  by 
"  any  of  his  minifters  without  teaching  ;  and  fuch 
"  teaching  or  inftru6tion,as  implies  great  and  good 
*'  effedt  on  their  fouls,  viz.  their  faith  in  Chrift, 
"  and  fubjedion  to  his  gofpel,  or  a  profeflion  of 
*'  it  :  For  who  can  pretend  to  make  difciples  any 
"  other  way  thin  after  the  primitive  manner  ?  2. 
"  That  none  can  be  a  difciple  of  Chrift  without 
"  this,  appears  by  the  words  of  our  blefled  Saviour 
"  himfelf,  already  quoted,  Luk.  14.  26.  27 — 33. 
*'  Now  if  Chrift  fays  no  man  can  be  his  difciple, 
"  without  being  fo  taught  by  him,  and  fo  learn- 
"ingofhim  as  to  take  up  his  crofs  and  follow 
*'  him  ;  and  Mr.  P.  fays  he  may  be  a  difciple 
"  without  teaching  ;  whom  are  we  to  believe  ? 
"  3.  I  would  afk,  to  whom  are  the  minifters  of  the 
"  gofpel  ordered  to  adminifter  baptifm  ?  Is  it  to 
"  all  men  in  general  in  all  nations,  or  to  thofe 
*'  only  who  are  made  difciples  in  all  nations  ?  If 
"  all  men  in  general  are  to  be  baptized  firft,  and 
"  then  taught  ;  then  all  adult  perfons  as  well  as 
"  infants,  ought  to  be  baptized  before  they  are 
"taught  (which  I  fuppofe  no  one  will  affert)  if 
*'  only  thofe  who  are  made  difciples  in  [all  nations 
*'  are  to  be  baptized,  then  there  is  fomething  re- 
"  quired  to  make  difc'ples  before  baptifm  ;  and 
"  what  can  this  be  but  teaching  ?  If  there  is  any 
"  other  way,  let  it  be  (hewn.  4.  Our  Saviour's 
"  way,and  that  of  John  the  baptifi^y?f2is  to  make  dif- 
"  ciples  firft,  and  then  to  admit  them  to  baptifm  ; 
"  for  the  textexprefly  tells  u<?,  that  Jefus  made  and 
"  baptized  more  difciples  than  John,  Here  feems  a 
"  plain  diftin(51:ion  between  making  difciples,  and 

*'  baptizing 


(      22       ) 

'*  baptizing  them  :  And  who  gives  Mr.  P.  licenfe 
"  to  invert  the  order  of  Chrift's  words  ? — 5.  The 
"  commifTion,  as  expreffed  in  a  parallel  text  by 
*'  another  Evangelift,  plainly  diredts  that  teaching 
"  ought  to  precede  baptifm  :  Preach  the  go/pel  to 
*'  every  creature  :  He  that  believethy  and  is  baptized, 
*''■  Jhall  be  favtd.  Which  words  (hew  the  exadl 
*'  order  that  is  to  be  obferved  ;>  firft  there  muft 
*'  be  preachings  then  belieiing  (for  faith  comes  by 
*'  hearing)  and  then  baptizing.  6.  The  pradice  of 
*'  the  apoltles  abundantly  confirms  this  ;  for  we 
''  find  they  firll  taught  the  people  to  whom  they 
*'  came,  exhorting  them  to  repentance  and  faith, 
*'  and  then  to  be  baptized  :  And  we  read  of  none 
*'  admitted  to  baptifm,  but  thofe  who  made  a 
*'  folemn  profeflion  of  repentance  and  faith.— If 
**  then  the  order  and  method  which  Chrift  has 
*'  eftabiifhed  is  not  to  be  inverted,  why  does  Mr, 
*'  P.  take  the  liberty  to  invert  it,  by  telling  us, 
*'  that  mmifters  are  firft  to  baptize,  and  then  to 
*'  teach  ;  tho'  Chrift  bids  them  firft  to  teach,  and 
"  then  baptize  ?" 

To  gain  his  point,  that  infants  of  vifible  bfliev^ 
crs  are  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  he  quotes  A61:s  15. 
10.  IVhy  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of 
the  difciples  ?  Scripture  is  a  chain  beautifully  link- 
ed together,  hence  one  part  can*t  crofs  or  contra- 
dict another.  I  have  ftiewn  already  in  the  fcrip- 
ture  fenfe,  that  infants  can't  be  difciples.  Neither 
are  infants  here  meant  by  difciples  :  But  fuch  per- 
fons  who  had  em.braced  the  truth.  To  prove 
which,  fee  ver.  i — «4. — 31. — by  which  v/e  learn 
they  were  capable  of  being  f aught ^  fuhverted  from 

the 


(      23      ) 

the  truth,  and  of  rejoycing  for  the  confolation, — 
Which  chiraders  don't  belong  to  infants. 

His  third  argument  concerning  federal  holi- 
nefs,  now  comes  under  notice.  *  "  Thofe  chll- 
"  dren,  fays  he,  that  are  federally  holy,  are  to  be 
"  baptlzred  ;  but  the  infants  of  vifible  believers, 
*'  are  federally  holy  :  Therefore  the  infants  of  vi- 
"  fible  believers,  are  to  be  baptized."  In  my  o- 
pinion,  this  fyllogifm  would  have  been  confident 
with  truth,  had  he  form'd  it  thus :  None  bur  thofe 
children  that  are  federally  holy,  are  to  be  baptized  ; 
but  neither  the  infants  of  vifible  believers,  nor  any 
other  infants,  as  fuch,  are  federally  holy  :  There- 
fore no  infants  are  to  be  baptized. — To  his  fyllo- 
gifm he  fubjoins,  "  Perhaps  no  fedlary,  that  al- 
*'  lows  chriftian  facraments,  will  deny,  that  federal 
"  holinefs  gives  a  vifible  right  to  baptifm."  This 
is  to  be  denied,  and  will  be,  while  we  find  it  is  not 
what  Mr.  P.  calls  federal  holinefs,  which  is  requir- 
ed in  the  bible,  of  perfons  to  be  baptized  :  But  a 
profefTion  of  their  faith  in  Chrift.  As  already  ob- 
ferved,  Mark  i6.  i6.  Ads  8.  37.  &  1 6.  31,  32,  33. 
This  profeiTion  of  faith  made  by  the  proper  fub- 
jeds  of  baptifm,  is  very  different  from  federal  ho- 
linefs, and  quite  another  thing.  It  may  be  ob- 
ferved,  that  even  being  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
don't  give  a  right  to  an  ordinance  of  God  •,  but 
only  his  divine  command  :  Much  lefs  then  does 
federal  holinefs  give  a  right  to  any.  That  a  right 
to  an  ordinance  of  God,  depends  upon  God's  com- 
mand, may  appear  from  Melchijedeck^  Lot^  with 
others,  who  were  ia  the  covenant  of  grace,  but 

had 

*  P.  27* 


(     «4     ) 

had  no  right  to  circnmcifion.  Why  fo  ?  becaufe 
not  commanded. — Nay,  tho'  Abraham  was  in  ihe 
covenant  of  grace  which  was  made  known  to  him, 
twenty  four  years  before  he  was  circumcifed,  Gen. 

12.  3.  and  17.  1 4.    yet  he  had   no   right  to 

that  ordinance  till  he  received  it  from  God  by  com- 
mand. 

Now  I  argue,  if  being  in  covenant  did  give  no 
right  to  circumcifion,  but  God's  command  ;  that 
being  in  covenant  now,  don't  give  a  right  to  bap- 
tifm,  much  lefs  a  federal  holinels :  But  God's  com- 
mand, in  which  is  included  every  prerequifice  to 
that  ordinance.  Now  no  infanrs  are  commanded 
to  be  baptized  ;  therefore  have  no  right  to  it. — 
Under  this  argument  Mr.  P.  tells  us  of  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed,  which  we 
have  already  confidered  •,  to  which  I  would  add, 
2  Sam.  23.  5.  Althd'  my  houfe  be  not  fo  with  God  ; 
yet  he  hath  made  with  yne  an  everlafting  covenant  or- 
dered in  all  things  and  Jure,  It  may  be  remembred 
that  Amnion^  Abfalom  and  Adonijah^  are  fragrant 
proofs,  that  Mr.  P — 's  way  of  reafoning  will  not 
do.  Who  fays,  "  The  covenant  of  grace  is  made 
"  with  parents  and  their  children." 

This  federal  holinefs,  which  he  thinks  gives  the 
children  of  believing  parents,  a  right  to  baptifm, 
I  fuppofe  he  takes  from  i  Cor.  7.  14.  For  the  un- 
believing  hufoand  is  fan5lified  by  the  wife^  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  fan^ified  by  the  hufband :  elfe 
were  your  children  unclean  •,  but  now  are  they  holy. 
Which  holinefs  he  thinks,  is  not  a  principle  of 
grace,  nor  a  matrimgnial,  but  a  federal  holinefs. 

Note, 


(      25      ) 

Note,  he  now  makes  federal  holinefs,  that,  whkll 
gives  a  right  to  baptifm.  But  a  few  pages  paft, 
it  was  perfons  being  in  the  church  which  gave 
that  right  ;  and  what  he  will  pitch  upon  next,  I 
know  not  :  Unlefs  he  fhould  add  to  the  holyfcrip- 
tures,  which  require  a  profeflion  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance previous  to  baptifm.  *  If  thou  helieveth 
with  all  thine  hearty  thou  may  ft,  -f  Repent  and  he 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  ofjefus  Chrifl,  J 
He  that  believe  thy  and  is  baptized^  fhall  be  faved. 

I  MUST  upon  this  text  fall  in  with  Mr.  Stennet^ 
tVilfon^  Jerom^  Ambrofe,  Erdfmus^  Camerarius,  Muf- 
culuSy  and  many  others  J  who  judge  a  matrimonial 
holinefs  to  be  meant.  What  I  underftand  by  ma- 
trimonial holinefs,  is  legitimacy  :  And  by  un- 
cleannefs  there,  illegitimacy  ;  feeing  the  prophet 
when  fpeaking,  againft  poligamy,  §  calls  the  ifTue 
of  a  lawful  marriage  a  godly  feed  ;  in  oppofition 
to  a  fpurious  or  illegitimate  feed  -,  which  {^td 
fprang  from  the  Jews  cohabitation  with  other' 
nations,  contrary  to  God's  command  :  |1  Which 
wives  they  were  ordered  to  put  away.  ^ 

The  ad  of  marriage,  in  the  language  of  the 
JewSy  is  exprelTed  by  "  being  fanftified  ;  many 
"  inftances  to  confirm  this  might  be  produced  from 
"  the  MifniCy  ^almudic  and  Rabinnic  writings,  as 
"  well  as  from  Mamonides :  Hence  it  can't  be  fuch 
"  2.  fan5lification  as  to  communicate  internal  holi- 
"  nefs,nor  federal  holinefs  \  but  that  which  renders 
E  '-the 

*  Aas  8.  37.        t  Aas  2.  38.        X  Mar.  16.  16. 
§  Mai.  2.  15.  II  Deut.  7.  3,  4,         !l  Ezra, 

10.     3.— ^ft  II. 


(     «6    ) 

"  the  offspring  lawfully  begot,  and  not  baflards, 
*'  as  thefe  were  formerly  accounted,  who  fprung 
•'  from  the  cohabitation  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.'*^* 
Mr.  Stennd  againfb  Rujfen^  ■\  fays,  "  Seeing  the  un- 
*'  believing  parent  is  Taid  in  this  text  to  be  fandli- 
"  fied  by  the  believer  •,  without  which,  according 
*'  to  the  apoflle's  argument,  their  children  could 
'*  not  be  holy  ;  the  holinefs  of  the  children  here 
"  fpoken  of  muft  be  derived,  as  well  from  the 
*'  fandification  of  the  unbelieving  parent,  as  that 
"  of  ihe  believer  ;  and  therefore  muft  regard  the 
*'  lawfulnefs  of  their  conjugal  relation.  And  if 
**  they  are  faid  to  be  fandtified  in  this  refpefl:,  the 
"  fandity  of  the  children,  which  is  derived  from 
*'  it,can  rife  no  higher  than  the  fource  from  whence 
*'  it  flows,  and  may  well  be  underftood  of  their  le- 
''  gitimacy.  Whatever  holinefs  is  afcribed  to  the 
"  children,  one  of  whofe  parents  is  a  believer  ;  the 
"  apoftle  does  not  here  fuggeft  in  the  leaft  that 
"  infants  ought  to  be  baptized  :  Nor  can  this  be 
''  inferred,  for  we  have  proved  before,  that  a  credi- 
''  bleprofeffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  ought  to 
"  be  made  by  all  thofe  who  are  admitted  to  bap- 
"  tifni,  before  they  can  juftly  be  accounted  proper 
'*  jlibjcds  of  that  ordinance." 

I  WOULD  add,  if  it  is  a  holinefs  which  gives  the 
children  a  right  to  baptifm,  upon  one  of  their  pa- 
rents embracing  chriftianity  ;  then  all  the  children 
of  fuch  parents  muft  have  a  right  to  it,  from  the 
qualification  derived  from  their  parents,  let  them 
be  of  any  age  whatfccver,  even  fifty  years  old  ; 
For  the  text  don't  fay,  or  clfe  were  your  infants 

unclean  ; 

*  P.  24S.  t  Df»  Gill  in  Loc, 


(   2;   ) 

unclean  •,  but  elfe  were  your  childreji  unclean  ; 
but  now  are  they  holy. — And  children  remain 
children,  thro'  every  period  of  life.  Again,  if 
children  have  a  right  to  baptifm,  by  virtue  of  this 
holinefs,  then  furely  the  unbelieving  parent  muft 
have  a  right  to  baptifm  too,  fince  this  holinefs 
which  is  faid  to  give  a  right  to  it,  is  derived  as 
much  from  the  unbelieving  parent,  as  the  believ- 
ing parent. — And  the  fandlity  derived,  can't  excel 
the  fcource  from  whence  it  fprings. 

Having  fhewn  what  this  holinefs  is,  we  pafs  to 
his  fourth  argument,*  "  That  dodrine  which  in- 
"  fers  all  infants  to  be  in  the  vifible  kingdom  of 
*^  fatan,  is  certainly  falfe  do6lrine.  But  the  doft- 
*^  rine  that  denies  all  infants  to  be  members  of  the 
*'  church,  infers  them  to  be  members  of  the  vifible 
**  kingdom  of  fatan  :  Therefore  it  is  falfe  dodt- 
*'  rine."  If  Mr.  P.  means  by  the  vifible  kingdom 
of  fatan,  all  who  are  not  in  the  fcripture  fenfe, 
members  of  the  gofpel  vifible  church,  then  the 
enquiry  is,  whether  infants  are  taken  into  the  gof- 
pel vifible  church  or  not  ?  This  muft  be  decided, 
not  by  one  aiTcrting  they  are,  and  another  they 
are  not  :  But  by  the  infallible  word  of  God.  It 
has  been  already  prov'd,  that  in  the  fcripture  fenfe, 
the  meet  fubje(tts  of  the  gofpel  church  are  fuch, 
who  are  capable  of  profeffing  their  faith  in  Chrift, 
which  infants  cannot  do.  The  gofpel  churches, 
mentioned  in  A6ls  i.  14.  and  2.  42.  and  chap.  8- 
make  nothing /^r  our  opponents-,  but  rather  ^- 
gainfi  them  *,  feeing  they  were  only  men  and  wo- 
men, and  fuch  as  were  capable  of  continuing  in 
prayer  and  the  cpoftWs  dcdrine. 

E    2  1  CAN 

*  P.  34' 


(       28      ) 

I  CAN  find  no  account  of  any  infants  being  bapr 
tized  and  received  into  the  church,  neither  in    fa- 
cred  or  profane  hiftory,  till  the  latter  end  of  the 
fecond,  or  beginning  of  the  third  century.     When 
the  man  of  fin  prevailed  much,  and  corruptions 
crept  very  fad  into  the  church- — communicating 
infants,  with  baptifing  bells,  meeting  houles,  and 
what  nor,  with  infant  baptifm,  then  took  place  ac- 
cording to  hiftory.     It  is   the   fcripture-dodrine 
then,  according  to  Mr.  P.  which  is  falfe  ^  becaufe 
it  will  not  join  with  him  to  admit  infants  as  mem- 
bers of  the   vifible  church  :  Confequently,  in   his 
language,  they  avc  the  "  members  of  the  vifible 
kingdom  of  fatan."     For  he   afferts,  there   is   no 
medium  between  the  vifible   kingdom   of  Chrift, 
and  the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan.    One  would  have 
thought  a  gentleman  who  adheres   to  the  human 
device  of  half-way  memberfhip,  would   have  held 
to  a  medium  between  Chrift's  vifible  kingdom  and 
fatan's  •,  but  it  feems    he  does  not.     He  tells  us, 
*'  the  only   ground  of  hope  that   we   can  have  of 
"  their  (viz.  infants)  being  the  m.embers  of  Chrift, 
"  by  a  real  and  vital  union  with  him,  arifes  from 
*^'  their  vifible  memberfhip.*'     I  am  forry    to  find 
one,  who  has  violently  withflood   the  torrent  of 
Arminianifn:^  in  thefe  parts  heretofore,  now  fo  pub- 
lickly  to  patronize  it,  and  give  it  fuch  a  kind  re- 
ception as  he  does  here. 

Here  obferve,  he  makes  the  ground  of  our 
hope,  for  our  children,  not  to  arife  from  God's 
electing  love  ;  nor  from  the  covenant  of  grace, 
in  which  all  the  eledt  were  included  •,  nor  from 
Chrift's  fatisfadion  made  for  fin,  and  procuring  a 

righteoufnefs 


(       29       ) 

righteoufnefs  for  all  that  the  father  gave  him  :  But 
cither  from  what  they  derive  from  their  believing 
parents,  by   their  birch  :  For  according  to  him, 
they  are  born  members  of  the  church  ;  or,  frorn 
what  the  parents  or  fome  friend,  with  the  minifter, 
have  done  for  them.     This  is  excluding  free  grace 
to  a  great  degree*  and  Ilrikes  diredlly  againft  the 
following    texts,    l^ot    by  works    of    righteoufnefs 
which  zve  have  done^  but  according  to  his  mercy  he 
faved  us^  by  the  wajhing  of  regeneration^  and  reneW' 
ing  of  the  holy  Ghofi,'^     iVhich   were  born   not  of 
bloody  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flefh^  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God.  f     Inflead  of  embracing  fuch 
pafTagcs  of  facred  writ,  this  muft  be   the  tenor  of 
his  do6lrine  ;  either  by  natural  defcent  from  be- 
lieving parents,  or  rather  by  our  baptifmal  work, 
all  our  hopes  for   our  children,  dying  in  infancy, 
arife.     This  is  not  only  corrupt,  but  very  danger- 
ous doflrine,  which  fuits  the  arminian  tafte,  upon 
which  doubtlefs  many  will  feaft  :  And  may  caufe 
them    to  argue    in    this  fort.    If  we    can    do  fo 
much  for  the  falvation  of  our  children,  furely   we 
may  do  fomething  for  our  own,  &c.  which  would 
be  juft  reafoning  from  fuch  a  tenet. 

To  render  his  argument  more  plaufible  he  quotes 
Matt.  19.  14.  Suffer  little  children  and  fordid  them 
not  to  come  unto  me  :  for  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom,  of 
heaven.  This  I  think  will  not  ferve  his  end,  if  we 
confider  the  13  th  ver.  which  informs  us,  for  what 
end  they  were  brought  toChrift,  not  to  be  baptized, 
for  Chrifl  baptized  none.  Joh.  4.  2,  But  that  he 
foould  put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray ^  Thefe  chil- 
dren 

*  Tit.  3.  ^  t  Joh,  I.  jj. 


(     30     ) 

dren  might  have  been  either  dlfeafed,  and  for  that 
end  brought  toChrift  to  be  cured  •,  or,  might  have 
been  brought  to  him,  as  fome  great  prophet,  to  be 
bleffcd  by  him,  according  to  the  antient  cuftom. 
Gen.  4(^  14,  1 5,  16.  By  whom- they  were  brought, 
is  uncertd:) ;  whether  by  their  parents  or  nurles  ; 
whether  by  moral  or  immoral  prions  ;  whether 
by  church  members  or  not.  I  think  "  This  is  to 
*'  fhew  his  ..umility,  that  he  was  not  above  taking 
*'  notice  of  any  ;  and  to  teach  his  difciples  to  re- 
•*  gard  the  weakeft  believers,  and  fuch  as  were  but 
**  children  in  knowledge  :  And  to  inform  them 
"  what  all  ought  to  be  who  expedl  the  king- 
**  dom  of  heaven  j  for  it  follows,  forbid  them  not  So 
*'  come  unto  me,  for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  : 
*'  Forbid  them  not,  now,  or  at  any  other  time.** 
And  it  is,  as  if  the  Lord  fhould  fay,  *'  Don't 
**  drive  away  thefe  children  from  my  perfon  or  pre- 
*'  fence  -,  they  .are  lively  emblems  of  the  proper 
*'  fubjedls  of  a  gofpel  church-ftatje,  and  of  fuch  as 
*'  fhall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  By 
**  thefe  I  may  inftru6l  and  point  out  to  you,  what 
*^  converted  perfons  ihould  be,  who  have  a  place 
"  in  my  church  below,  and  expe6t  to  enter  into 
•*  my  kingdom  and  glory  above  j  that  they  are  or 
"  ought  to  be,  like  fuch  children,  harmlefs  and 
"  inoffenfive  ;  free  from  rancor  and  malice,  meek, 
*'  modeft,  and  humble  j  without  pride,  felf-con- 
"  ceit,  and  ambitious  views,  and  defires  of  gran- 
'*  deur,  and  fuperioriry.  Chrift's  entire  filence  a- 
*'  bout  the  baptifm  of  infants  at  this  time,  when 
"  he  had  fuch  an  opportunity  of  fpeaking  of  it  to 

**  his 


(     31     ) 

"  his  difciples,  had  it  been  his  will,  has  no  favour- 
*'  able  afpedt  on  fuch  a  pradtice."  * 

Let  us  now  remark  upon  his  fifth  argument,  f 
"  That  dodtrine  which  renders  the  privileges  of 
"  the  cbrijlian  church,  lefs  than  the  privileges  of 
"  the  Jewijh  church,  is  certainly  falfe  dodrine  :— 
*'  But  the  doctrine  which  excludes  the  infants  of 
"  vifible  believers  from  the  initiating  feal  of  the 
*'  covenant  of  grace,  viz.  baptifm,  makes  the  pri' 
*'  vileges  of  the  cbrijlian  church  lefs  than  the  pri- 
**  vileges  of  the  Jewi/h  church  ;  therefore  it  is 
"  falfe  dodrine."  Here  he  makes  baptifm  to 
bring  infants  into,  and  feal  them  in  the  covenant 
of  grace.  If  it  is  fo,  then  all  the  children  of  vi- 
fible believers  who  are  baptized,  mud  be  entitled 
to  the  bleflings  of  that  covenant,  which  are  jufti- 
fication,  adoption,  fandification,  and  the  gift  of 
the  holy  Ghofl,  &c.  But  will  any  one  dare  to 
affirm,  that  every  baptized  infant  has  thefe,  or  arc 
entitled  to  them  ?  No,  unlefs  he  holds  that  they 
who  were  once  in  the  covenant  of  grace  may 
finally  fall  from  it.  In  this  place  he  infmuates 
that  baptifm  brings  the  children  of  believing  pa- 
rents into  the  covenant  of  grace  -,  and  before,  J 
that  they  were  taken  into  the  covenant  of  grace, 
becaufe  they  were  believers  children  :  "  And  pa- 
rents that  are  believers,  have  their  children  taken 
into  covenant  with  them."  The  reader  may  eafily 
fee,  another  inconfiftency  here  j  for  if  they  are 
brought  into  the  covenant  of  grace  on  their  pa- 
rents account,  then  not  by  baptifm  ;  or  if  by  bap- 
tifm, then  not  on  their  parents  account :  For  there 

can't 

♦  Dr.  Gill  in  Loc.        t  ?♦  3S*  ^  3^»       J  P.  i6. 


(     3Z     ) 

ean't  be  two  oppofite  ways  to  bring  the  fame  per- 
fon  or  perfons  into  the  covenant  of  grace.  I  fup- 
pofe  if  he  fhould  treat  upon  fome  other  fubjedt, 
he  would  tell  us,  that  the  eled:  were  not  taken  into 
the  covenant  of  grace,  by  parents,  nor  by  baptifrri, 
nor  by  any  works  of  their  own,  but  were  included 
in  it,  when  firft  made  v/ith  Chrift  from  everlafting. 

-As  to  the  privileges  of  the  chriftian  church  be- 
ing lefs  than  the  privileges  of  the  Jewifli  church, 
becaufe  of  the  denial  of  infant  baptifm  \  is  mere 
noife  without  any  fubftance.  For  we  believe  they 
are  by  far  greater,  agreeable  to  2  Cor.3.  lo.  Even 
that  which  was  made  glorious^  had  no  glory  in  this 
refpe^f,  by  reafon  of  the  glory  that  excelkth, 

1.  Under  the  prefent  difpenfation^the  bleflings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  were  darkly  ex- 
hibited by  figures,  types  and  fhadows  under  the 
former,  fhine  in  their  unbeclouded  lufture. 

2.  The  gofpel  church  far  exxeeds  the  'Jewijh 
church  in  glory  :  The  Jewiflo  church  was  made  up 
of  lively  and  dead  materials,  but  the  gofpel  church, 
of  prof e fled  lively  materials,  i  Pet.  2.  5.  Te  alfo 
as  lively  fiones  are  built  up  a  Spiritual  houfe, 

3.  Infants  were  circumcifed  and  fo  bound  to 
keep  the  whole  law,  from  which  bondage  we  are 
now  delivered.  Gal.  5.  i, — 3.  Stand  faji  therefore 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Chrifl  hath  jnade  us  ftee^ 
and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage. 
For  1  tefiify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcijedy 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Which 
yoke  fame  oi  ih^  judaifing  teachers  had  a  mind  to 

impofe 


(    ss    ) 

fmpofe  upon  the  difclples  of  Chrifl,  as  may  be  feen 
in  Ads  15.  I, — 5, —  lo.  but  ibe  apoftle  withftood 
them,  and  afked  them  why  they  tempted  Gvd  to  put 
a  yoke  upon  the  neak  of  the  difciples  ?  Now  if  infant 
baptifm  did  come  in  the  room  of  circumcifion,  is 
it  not  likely  at  fuch  a  time  as  this,  when  there 
were  fuch  warm  difputes  about  if,  as  in 
the  chap,  juft  quoted,  that  mention  would  have 
been  made  of  it  ?  It  might  have  readily  filenced 
the  judaifing  Teachers  •,  but  not  a  word  of  this  : 
which  is  a  ftrong  argument  that  it  did  not  come  la 
the  room  of  it.  Nay  thofe  who  affirm  that  bap- 
tifm come  in  the  room  of  circumcifion  do  it  with- 
out any  divine  warrant,  there  being  no  text  in  the 
whole  bible  to  prove  it. 

4.  But  the  Pedobaptijls  fay  we  lefien  the  privileges 
of  the  gofpel,  by  not  admitting  infants  into  the 
gofpel  churchjfeeing  the  infants  of  the  Jews^  were 
admitted  into  the  Jewijh  church.  —  Upon  which 
I  would  obferve,  1.  It  was  a  privilege  to  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Jews  to  be  admitted  into  the  Jewijb 
church,  in  their  infancy,  by  circurncifion  i  but  it 
is  no  privilege  to  our  children  to  be  admitted  into 
the  gofpel  church  in   their  infancy  by  baptifm.' 

2.  The  Jewi/h  infants  were  admitted  into  their 
church  in  confequence  of  God's  command  :  but 
there   is   no   command    to    baptize   our   infants. 

3.  By  baptizing  our  children  and  taking  them  in- 
to the  gofpel  church,  we  lefTen  the  glory  of  the 
building,  which  is  to  confift  of  lively  Jlones  -,  but 
infants,  as  fuch,  are  dead  materials  :  Hence  have 
no  right  there,  and  do  mar  the  glory  of  it.  4. 
The  privileges  of  God's  children  are  lefTened  by- 
admitting  improper  fubje£ls,  to  partake  of  them. 
5.  I  can't  find  that  it   does  infants  any  good  t 

F  baptizQ 


(  34  ; 

baptize  them  ;  or  that  fuch  have  any  fuperior  privi- 
lege(  which  will  be  of  any  real  fervice  to  them)to  thofe 
who  are  not  baptized.  6.  The  partitron  wall  is  now 
broken  down  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  andGod's 
ckurch  not  confined  to  one  nation  as  formerly. 

Having  thus  confidered  his  fifth  argument, 
the  fixth  now  comes  in  courfe.  "  If  it  was  the 
*'  approved  practice  of  the  church  in  the  apoflle's 
*'  days,  and  fo  downward,  to  introduce  the  children 
*'  of  vifible  believers  into  the  chri-ftian  church,  by 
^'  the  feal  of  baptifm  •,  then  the  infants  of  fuch 
*'  parents  ought  to  be  baptized  :  But  it  was  the 
^*  approved  pradice  j'n  the  time  of  the  apoftles, 
"  and  fo  downward  thro'  all  periods  of  the  church, 
^*  therefore  the  children  of  fuch  parents  ought  to 
*'  be  baptized."  This  fyMogifm  might  have  been 
better  exprefled,  thu3  :  If  it  was  not  the  approved 
practice  of  the  church  in  the  apoftles  days,  and  fo 
immediately  downward,  to  introduce  the  children 
of  vifible  believers  into  the  chriftian  church,  by 
baptifm  •,  then  the  infants  of  fuch  pa^rents  ought 
not  to  be  baptized  :  But  it  was  not  the  approved 
pra6lice  in  the  time  of  the  apoftles,  and  fo  down- 
ward, therefore  the  children  of  fuch  parents  are 
not  to  be  baptized — and  if  not  fuch,  then  no  other 
infants. 

Mr.  p.  to  prove  the  firft  part  of  his  fyllogifm, 
"^  That  it  was  the  approved  pra6lice  in  the  time 
'^  of  the  apoftles,  and  fo  downward,  to  introduce 
*'  the  children  of  vifible  believers  into  the  chriftian 
''  church,  by  the  feal  of  baptifm,"  tells  us  of 
Zacchens :  *  "  By  virtue  of  his  intereft  in  the  cove- 

^^'  nanc 

*  Luke  i^.  9^ 


(    35    )     , 

**  nant  which  God  made  with  Abraham^  Chrift  ap- 
"  plied  the  promife  to  his  houfe,  i.  e.  to  his  chil- 
"  dren  whether  young  or  old."  He  fhould  have 
firft  told  us,  that  Zaccheus  was  a  married  man,  and 
had  children,  and  then  proved  it,  before  he  afTerted 
the  promife  was  made  to  his  children.  This  looks 
much  like  the  argument  to  maintain  infant  baptifm, 
taken  from  Lydia  and  her  houfhold.  The  good 
woman,  no  one  can  prove, was  ever  married  or  had 
any  children.  Poor  foundation  to  maintain  a 
practice  of  fuch  a  folemn  nature  upon  !  Again, 
^'  This  day  is  falvation  come  to  this  houfe,  for  as 
much  as  he  alfo  is  the  fon  of  Abraham.'^  Is  it  noc 
very  common,  if  but  one  foul  is  converted  in  a 
family,  to  fay  falvation  is  come  to  fuch  a  houfe  ? 
And  from  thence  we  don't  conclude,  that  every 
individual  in  fuch  a  family  is  converted,  or  become 
related  to  Chrift.  I  fuppofe  by  this  text  we  are 
to  underftand  either  Chrift's  perfonally  going  to 
Zaccheus^s  houfe  •,  or  his  fpiritually  entering  into 
his  heart  by  his  grace.  If  the  firft,  the  reafon  is 
here  given,  becaufe  he  is  the  fon  of  Abrahmn  by 
natural  defcenr,  fo  that  the  Jevjs  could  not  refied: 
upon  him  for  going  to  one  of  another  nation,  fince 
he  was  fent  only  to  the  lotl  fheep  of  the  houfe  of 
Ifrael^—-\^  \}ci^  fecond,  the  reafon  is,  becaufe  he  is 
tjie  fon  of  Abraham  in  a  fpiritual  fenfe  \  vvho  is 
termed  x\\t  father  of  the  faithful.  This,  feems  ta 
be  the  fenfe  which  Mr.  Whitefield  puts  upon  ir, 
when  he  fays,  *  *'  The  converfion  of  the  perfon 
**  referred  to  in  the  text,  I  think  will  be  of  no  fmall 
«'  fervice  to  us  in  this  matter." 

In  this  fixth  argument,  he  calls  baptifm  a  feal ; 
•*.by  the  feal  of  baptifm  j"  as  he  did  in  his  fifth 
F  2  argumenit 

^  His  Sermon  upon-Xuk,  19..  9?  10. 


(     36    ) 

argument —  "  Iniriating  ftal  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  viz.  baprifrr,"     Mr.  Rees  may  fpeak  here  :  * 

•^ •  "  However  Mr.  W.  freely  and    frequently 

"  calls  it  a  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  :  Whereas 
*'  thegofpeiis  aftranger,  notonly  to  the  phrafe,  but 
"  to  the  idea  annexed  to  it,  for  baptifm  will  fecure 
*'  or  leal  none  to  eternal  life  :  Such  only  fhall  be 
*'  faved,  who  thro' grace  are  interefled  in  the  blood 
*'  of  the  everlalling  covenant.  Therefore  let  not 
*'  parents  flatter  themfelves,  and  their  children  in 
^'  this  point  ;  nor  fuffer  themfelves  to  be  deceived 
*'  by  the  empty  appellations,  and  groundlefs  no-. 
*'•  tions,  that  their  teachers  may  have  inftilled  into 
''  them  •,  for  according  to  the  gofpel,  the  holy 
*^'  Gholt  is  the  only  one  •,  and  his  grace  the  only 
"  qualification,  that  can  be  faid  to  feal  the  cove- 
^'  nant  of  grace,  to  thofe  who  are  faved,  Eph.  i, 
*'  13.  In  whom  al/o,  after  that  ye  believed  ye  were 
^^  feakd  with  the  holy  fpirit  of  promife.  Chap.  4.  30. 
*'  And  grieve  not  the  holy  fpirit  of  Gcd^  whereby  ye  are 
*■  fealedto  the  day  of  redemption,  2  Cor.  1.22.  Who 
"  hath  alfo  fealed  us^  and  given  us  the  earnejl  of  the 
'-'•  fpirit  in  otj^r  hearts.  Simon  Magus  had  a  clearer 
^'  right  to  baptifm,  in  Foro  Ecclef^:^  in  the  account 
"  of  the  church,  than  any  infants  can  pretend  to. 
"  For  he  was  admitted  upon  proftfiion  of  faith, 
''  and  yet  his  baptifm  was  far  from  being  a  feal  of 
"  the  coyenant  of  grace  to  hitri  •,  for  the  man  was 
*'  ft  ill  in  the  gall  of  bitternejs^  and  bend  of  iniquity, 
^'  Ads  8.  13, — 23.  And  there  are  too  many  de- 
*^'  plorable  infcances,  apong  all  denominations  of 
"  thofe  who  have  been  baptized,  whether  in  in- 
"  fancy  or  when  aduU,  who  teftify  by  th^ir  works, 

'<  thai 

*■  In  Anfwer  to  Walkerj  P»  66. 


(     37    ) 

*'  that  they  are  utter  ftrangers,  to  the  grace  of  the 
*'  covenant  of  faithful  Abraham,  I  fhall  only  add, 
"  that  I  am  well  aware  that  divers  of  the  fathers 
*'  (tiled  baptifm,  the  feal  ;  but  does  the  fcripture 
**  call  it  fo  ?  Some  of  the  fathers  made  it  neceflfary 
'^  to  falvation,  but  does  it  therefore  follow,  that  it 
^'  is  fo  ?  The  Romijh  church  is  indeed  of  that  o- 
*'  pinion,  but  very  ftw  Prot  eft  ants  who  have  bet-* 
*'  ter  ftudied  the  fcriptures,  v/ill  offer  to  maintaia 
*^  fuch  a  dodrine.  But  to  clofe  this  head,  a  feal 
^'  was  only  one  of  the  familiar  but  arbitrary  names, 
*'  which  the  antients  gave  to  baptifm.  And  who- 
*'  foever  will  confult  Gregory  Nazianzen*%  fortieth 
"  oration,  will  find  a  catalogue  of  fuch  names,  to- 
"  gether  with  the  reafons  they  thought  proper  to. 
*'  affign  for  them,  in  thofe  days  ;  and  the  particu- 
*'  lar  reafon  he  gives,  why  baptifm  is  called  a  feal, 
^  13,  in  his  own  words,  delivered  thus  :  Afeal^  as 
*^  keeping  and  denoting  dominion.  What  fignifi-* 
"  cancy  there  is  in  thefe  expreflions,  I  muft  leave 
'*  for  the  reader  to  judge.'' 

I  FIND  under  this  argument,  Cornelius  and  thq 
Jaylor  mentioned  :  Here  let  the  reader  take  no- 
tice, that  Cornelius  and  his  houfhold,  were  all  ca- 
pable of  hearing,  and  in  hearing,  to  receive  the 
Holy  Ghoft^  ^ndjpeak  with  tongues  and  magnify  God, 
Afts  lo.  33 — >44.  46.  Which  charadlers  don't  a- 
gree  with  infants.  And  as  to  the  jaylor  and  his 
houfhold,  they  were  capable  of  hearing  and  re- 
ceiving inilrudion  ;  which  is  evident  from  the  a- 
poftle,  fpeaking  to  him  and  all  his  houfe,  and  their 
being  able  to  rejoyce  and  believe  in  God,  A6ls  16. 
323 — 34.    And  they  ff  ah  unto  him  tU  word  of  the 

Lordp 


(  38  ; 

Lord^  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  houfe.     And  when 
he  had  brought  them  into  his  houfe ^  he  fet  meat  before 
them  and  rejoyced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  houfe. 
Which  charaders  agree  not  to  infants.     So  from 
thefe  texts  there  is  no  ground  for  infant  baptifrn  ; 
But  rather  to  the  contrary.     After  Mr.  P — 's  quo- 
ting, "  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect  -,  and 
I  will  eflablifh  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  feed  after  thee,  to  be  a  God  to  thee,  and 
to  thy  feed  after  thee.'*     He  fays,  *  "  The  utmofl 
*'  intended  by  thefe  promifes  is,  that  they  fhould 
"  enjoy  the  bkfTmgs  of  church  privileges,  and  the 
*'  external  means  of  falvation  -,  and  on  thefe  ac- 
"  counts    be  diftinguifhed  from    all    others."     I 
don't  find  that  there  is  one  privilege,  or  any  means 
of  falvation, which  baptized  children,  as  fuch,  have  ; 
that  unbaptized  children  have  not  :  And  fhould 
be  glad,  if  our  opponents  would  inform  the  world 
of  their  fuperior  pjivileges  and  means,  if  there  be 
any  ^  and  if  they  can  5nd  none,  it's  time  to  drop 
this  trite  affertion,  jufb  to  amufe    the  ignorant.     I 
acknowledge  it  was  an  advantage  to  the  Jewifh  in- 
fants, to   be  circumcifed  ;  for   unlefs   tbey   were, 
they  were  to  be  cut  off  from  the  privilege  of  per- 
taking  of  the  Paffover,,  and  of  hearing  the  law  and 
prophets  expounded  ;  which    the  apoflle  points. 
out  to  be  the  chief  profit  of  circumcifion.  -f 

In  this  our  privilege  is  much  enlarged  under 
the  prefqni:  difpenfatlon  ;  for  the  gofpel  is  to  be 
preached,  to  every  creature,  without  any  previous, 
qualification  in  the  hearer,  and  upon  hearing  and 
believing  they.are  to  be  baptized,  MatfA:i6.  15,  i6. 

And^ 

*  P.  40.  t  Rom.  3    I,  2> 


i    39    ) 

And  thofe  who  believe,  are  fuch,  whom  the  Lord 
our  God  calls  -,  to  whom  the  promife  is.  Ads  2. 
gg.  For  the  promife  is  unto  you  and  ycur  children, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off^  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  fJjall  call.  Hence  it  is  evident,  if  it  fhould 
be  afked,  to  whom  is  this  promife  in  A6ls  2.  39  ? 
The  anfwer  is  ready  :  To  all,  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles^  whom  the  Lord  fhall  call. — The  promife  is 
the  fame  to  the  children,  parents,  and  to  them  afar 
off :  Hence  to  argue  from  this  text,  that  believing 
parents  are  to  get  their  children  baptized,  becaufe 
the  promife  is  to  them,  don't  appear  to  be  the  de- 
fign  of  the  holy  Ghofl  in  ic.  We  might  as  well 
argue  from  this  text  that  the  promife  is  to  their 
children,  fo  thofe  who  are  afar  off  are  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  or  the  promife  is  to  them  afar  off^  and  fo 
the  parents  are  to  be  baptized  ;  as  to  fay,  becaufe 
the  promife  is  to  the  parents  :  Therefore  the  chil- 
dren are  to  be  baptized. — For  the  promife  is  no 
more,  to  one  than  to  the  other  ;  and  they 
are  brought  to  pofTefs  the  promife,  by  being 
effedlually  called. 

And  let  it  be  further  obferved,  that  the  perfons 
here  fpoken  to, were  but  now  awakened  ;  in  great 
diftrefs  about  their  fouls,  nor  as  yet  were  comfort- 
ed, or  had  profefled  their  faith  in  Chriil  :  Hence 
liow  very  improper  is  it  to  draw  any  argument  for 
the  baptifm  of  believers  children  from  thence  ? 

Mr.  p.  *  fays,  ''  According  to  the  moft  authen- 
^^  tic  church  hiflory,  infant  baptifm  was  pra6tifed 
^^  in  the  days  of  the  apoftlcs,  and  in  the  places  and 

f*  churches 

^  Pr    4^. 


(     40     ) 

^*  churches  to  whom  Paul  wrote  his  epiftlesj^&c. 
I  would  alk,  if  any  church  hiftory  is  as  authentic, 
as  the  hiftory  which  we  have  from  God,  viz.  the 
bible  ?  Or,  are  we  to  rely  upon  church  hiftory  for 
a  divine  ordinance,  which  facred  hiftory  is  filent 

about  ?  Paul's  epiftles  fpeak  for  themfelves.-^-^ 

Whether  there  is  one  word  in  all  of  them  about 
infant  baptifm,  I  leave  the  reader  to  judge.  But 
fince  church  hiftory  is  referred  to,  and  great  ftrefs 
laid  upon  it  5  it  may  not  be  amifs  to  examine 
the  teftimonies  of  the  primitive  writers,  three  of 
whom  are  mentioned  by  Mr.  P.  and  the  fynodical 
decree. 

The  firft  is  Origin,  whom  he  afterts  lived  about 
100   years   after   the  apoftle   Paul.     Mr.  Rees^  * 
fpeaks  of  two  of  thefe  men  as  '*  teftimonies  pro- 
"  duced  by  Mr.  W.  and   informs   us  that   Origin 
*'  fiouriftied  about  230  years  after  Chrift,  and  that 
"  the  quotations  are  not  Origin's  own  words,  but 
"  a  tranflation  of  him,  of  which  tranflation   there 
"  are  grievous   complaints   among  learned   men, 
"  becaufe  his  works  are  fo  corrupted- and  interpo- 
"  lated,  that  one  fcarcely  knows,  whether  he.  reads 
"  him,  or  fome  other  officious  commentator  in  his 
"  room  ;  and  that  the  moft  ftridt  fearchers  into 
"  his  own  proper  works,  which  remain,   are  not 
*'  able  to  produce  out  of  him  any  thing  in  favour 
*' of  infant   baptifm.     And   Cyprian.,  A.  D.   250,' 
"  pleaded  for  infant  baptifm, tho'  in  his  day  an^^n- 
"  can  Biftiop  {Fidus  by  name  J  was  uneafy  to  know 
*'  the  proper  time  to  baptize  infants,  which  was  to 
"  be  determined  by  a  Synod  Cwhich  fynodical  de- 

*'  Cree 
*  Againft  Mr,  Fowler  Walkerc  P.  152,  153. 


(     41     ) 

*«  cree  I  fuppofe  Mr.  P.  refers  to)  This  is 
•'  fufHcient  to  give  the  impartial  reader  a  very 
*'  ftrong  fufpicion  that  this  was  a  novel  pradice, 
*'  now  to  be  regulated  by  a  fynodical  decree  ; 
"  whereas  if  the  pradlice  had  been  handed  down 
*'  from  the  apoftle's  days,  as  many  do  pretend, 
•'  what  need  was  there  for  this  decree  ?'*  * 

The  writers  of  the  firft  century  are,  Barnaha^y 
Hermas^  Clemens  Romams,  Ig-MtiuSy  and  Polycarp  -f 
The  learned  Mr.  Stennet^  againft  RuJJen^  quotes 
fome  expreflions  from  Barnabas  and  b'ermas.  ;f 
"  They  are  blefTtd,  v/ho  fixing  their  hope  on  rhe 
**  crofs,  have  gone  down  into  the  water." —  And 
a  little  after — "  We  defcend  into  the  water  full  of 
"  fins  and  defilements,  and  come  up  our  of  ic, 
*'  brmging  forth  fruit,  having  in  our  hearts  the  fear 
•'  and  hope  which  is  in  Jeius  "  Hermas^  in  his 
vifion  of  the  building  of  the  church  triumphant, 
reprefented  by  a  tower,  has  thefe  words  con- 
cerning the  explication  that  was  made  to  him  : 
*'  What  are  the  reft  of  the  ftones  which  fall  by  the 
"  water's  fide,  and  could  not  be  roiled  into  the 
*'  water  ?  They  are  fuch  as  have  heard  the  word, 
'*  and  were  willing  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
**  the  Lord  ;  but  then  they  call  to  mind  that  ho- 
*'  linefs  is  required  in  thofe  who  profefs  the  truth, 
*'  withdraw  themfelves,  and  again  wali^  according 
•'  to  their  own  wicked  inclinations  :"  And  more 
to  the  fame  purpofe,  fiiewing  that  they  ufed  thea 

G  10 

*  This  Quotation  varys  in  Expreflion,  in  fome  Sen* 
tences,  tho'  it  is  the  fame  in  Senfe. 

f  Dr.  Gill,  againft  a  Pamphlet  entitled,  Divine  Righf 
oj  Infant  Bapifm,  P.  ao.  %  P.  142,  143. 


(      42       ) 

to  require  a  profeflion  of  holinefs,  or  faith  before 
they  were  baptized  by  immerfion,  denoted  by  the 
Itones  rolled  into  the  water. 

Not  one  word  in  all  thcfe  firfl  writers,  according 
to  thofe  who  have  carefully  read  them,  is  to  be  found 
for  infant  bapcifm.  "  The  chrillian  writers  of  the 
*'  fecond  century,  which  are  extant,  are  Juftin 
*'  Martyr^  dthenagoras^'Theophilus  of  Antioch^l atian^ 
*'  Minutius  Felixt  Iremeus^  and  Clemens  of  Alexan- 
*'  dria.  *  Of  all  th^fe  writers  there  is  not  one  that 
*'  fays  any  thing  of  infant  baptifm."  There  is  but 
one  pretended  to,  by  what  I  can  learn,  and  that  is 
Iren^us,  who  is  reprefented  by  our  opponents  as 
laying.  That  the  church  received  a  tradition  from  the 
Apofiles  to  adminijler  baptifm  to  little  children^  or  in^ 
fants.  Which  •'  Dr.  Gill  charges  as  a  forgery  : 
*'  There  being  no  fuch  pafiage  in  all  the  works  of 
*'  Iren^eus  ;  and  defies  the  whole  literary  world 
*'  to  produce  or  point  out  any  fuch  pafTage 
*'  in  him."  This  Iren^us,  with  Cyprian  and 
Origen,  are  the  three  teftimonies  which  Mr.  P. 
produces. 

I  HAVE  read,  that  in  the  third  century,  infant 
baptifm  was  fpoken  of ;  but  the  firft  that  men* 
tions  it  fpeaks  againft  it,  viz.  Tertullian  :  And  that 
k  was  then  moved  for.  And  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries,  it  got  much  eftablifhed,  and  fo  pre- 
vailed till  the  reformation  :  Tho*  thro'  the  feveral 
intermediate  centuries,  there  are  teftimonies  to  be 
found  againft  the  baptifm  of  infants. — Which  may 
be  feen  in  Crofbf%  hiftory  of  the  Englifti-Baptifts, 

ai)d 

*  Dr,  Gill  juft  cited,  P.  21. 


(    43    ) 

and  in  the  writings  of  Mr.  Stennet^  and  Dr.  GUI. 
Thus  the  reader  fees,  how  truth  from  hiftory  pre- 
ponderates upon  the  Baptift's  fide,  and  elucidates 
the  point  fo  much  contended  for. 

Having  thus  weighed  the  arguments,  which 
Mr.  P.  fays  are  very  imperfedlly  handled  ;  and 
finding  them  light,  when  put  in  the  fcales  of  the 
fandluary  :  —  We  now  proceed  to  notice  the  ob- 
jedlions,  which,  fays  he,  are  pleaded  by  our  ad^ 
verfaries. 

Objection  i.  "  Our  adverfaries  plead,  as  they 
**  fay,  for  believers  baptifm  ;  and  they  argue  to 
*'  this  effeft,  viz.  infants  are  not  capable  of  faith  : 
*'  But  there  is  no  warrant  to  baptize  any,  but  thofe 
*'  that  profefs  their  faith  in  Chrift,  and  therefore 
*'  no  infants  may  be  baptized."  To  remove  this 
objection,  he  thinks  the  fame  might  have  been 
faid,  "  Againft  circumcifing  children,  under  the 
*'  legal,  as  againft  baptizing  them  under  the  chri- 
"  ftian  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 
This  miftake  of  his  may  be  eafily  feeii  by  confider- 
ing  I.  Under  the  law  a  profefTion  of  faith  was  not 
required,  as  a  previous  qualification  to  circumcifi- 
on' :  But  under  the  gofpcl  a  profelTion  of  faith,  by 
the  fubje(5ls  to  be  baptized,  is  required,  as  a  pre- 
vious qualification  to  bap  ifm.  2.  God  under  the 
former  dilpenfation  pointed  out  male  infants,  as 
proper  fubje^ts  of  circumcifion  :  But  he  no  where 
under  the  prefent  difpenfation  points  out  infants, 
as  being  proper  fubjedls  of  baptifm.  3.  He  makes 
a  grand  miftake  in  quoting  Rom.  4.  11.  and  en- 
deavours to  make  out  that  circumcifion  was  a  feal 
«f  t'le  righteoufnefs  of  faith  to  all  its  fubjeCts,  and 
G  2.  '  fp 


(     44     ) 

fo  that  baptifm  is  now  to  all  a  feal  of  the  rightc-* 
oufnefs  of  faith,  upon  whom  it  is  adminiftrcd  :  But 
it  is  time  for  him  to  learn,  that  neiiher  circumcifi- 
on,  nor  baptiJm,  is  any  where  in  the  holy  fcrip-. 
tures  called  a  it^al  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  of 
their  righfcoufnefs. 

The  text  juft  mentioned,  is  wrongly  quoted 
by  Mr.  P.  thus  ;  "  they  had  yet  being  uncir- 
cumcifed  :"  Which  is,  Ani  he  received  the  fign 
of  circiimcifion^  a  feal  of  the  right  ecu]  ne/s  of  the 
faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcifed^  &c.  Ic 
was  a  feal  to  Abraham  :  But  not  to  his  pofterity.— 

Our  opponent  is  not  quite  fatisfied  with  letting 
t}\t  world  know,  that  the  Baptifts  are  wrong,  differ- 
ing from  him  :  But  charges  ourSaviour,  the  apoflle 
Feter  and  Paul^  with  a  miftake  ;  if  his  notion  is 
not  right  in  this  point,  "  that  parents  making  pro- 
fefTion  of  thtir  faith,  bring  in  their  children  with 
th:^m  into  a  church  memberfhip  :"  *  But  we  have 
already  proved,  that  this  is  repugnant  to  the  word 
of  God.  Therefore,  according  to  him,  Chrift  and 
his  apoftles  have  miffed  it.  What  will  not  error 
Jead  perfons  into  !  Lord  enlighten  the  dark  un- 
derstanding, and  caufe  the  prcfumptuous  and  ig* 
norant  to  fee  ! 

The  fecond  obie(fi:ion  which  he  mentions  is, 
*'  There  is  no  expiefs  command  or  example  for 
'^  baptizing  infants."  To  remove  this  objedion, 
he  firfh  puts  us  upon  proving  by  command  or  ex- 
ample, that  women  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  fup- 

per  5 

*  P.  44.  you  have  it  at  large. 


(     45     ) 

per  ;  and  then  the  religious  obfervance  of  the 
Lord's  day.  That  women  have  a  right  to  the 
Lord's  fupper,  fee  A6ls  i.  13,  14  Chap.  2.  41, — ► 
47.  and  Chap.  5.  9,  14.  And  as  to  the  rehgious 
obfervance  of  the  Lord's  day,  we  are  inchned  to 
it  from  the  refurredlion  of  Chrift,  on  that  day,  and 
the  example  of  the  apoftles  and  primitive  churches 
meeting  to  ptrtorm  fome  of  the  molt  folemn  duties 
and  acts  of  worfhip  on  that  day,  /ids  20.  7.  1  Cor, 
1 6.  2.  Nosv  let  incPedobaptilis  give  us  fuch  proof 
for  infant  baptifm  Again,  fays  he, ''  We  have  an 
"  exprefs  command,  which  has  never  been  revcr- 
"  fed,  to  adminUter  :he  initiating  feal  of  the  cove- 
"  nant,to  the  chilJren  of  vifible  believers."  It  would 
have  bten  well  for  him  to  have  informed  us  what 
he  means  by  the  initiating  feal  ;  if  by  it  he  means 
circumcifion,  then  I  would  argue  that  circumcifion 
has  been  either  reverfed,  or  it  is  yet  in  force  :  But  it 
is  not  in  force,  therefore  it  has  been  reverfed  or  re- 
pealed, and  the  fame  authority  th^-  commanded  it 
to  be,  has  remanded  it  not  to  be,  as  we  have  already 
(hewn.  The  initiating  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
fo  often  mentioned,  is  antifcriptural,  and  I  appre- 
hend ufed  by  many  without  any  proper  meaning. 
For  as  to  the  covenant!  of  grace,  we  have  (hewn  it 
to  be  fealed  by  Chrift's  blood  ;  and  as  to  the  pro- 
mifes  contained  in  it  they  are  fealed  to  the  foul  by 
the  holy  Ghoft  :  Hence  baptifm  can  neither  feal 
any  fpiritual  or  temporal  bit  flings.  And  were  we 
to  grant,  which  we  don't,  that  baptifm  is  a  feal, 
then  to  adminifter  it  to  an  infant,  would  be  like 
puting  a  feal  upon  a  blank  piece  of  paper. 

Mr; 


(     46    ) 

Mr.  p.  thinks  if  a  miflionary  to  thelndians  fliould 
write  to  us  that  he  had  baptized  fuch  anindian  &his 
houfe ;  and  another  Ihould  write  to  us  that  he  had 
baptized  the  head  of  fuch  a  family  and  all  his,  we 
ihould  very  readily  underftand  them.  *  I  believe 
wc  fhould,  for  if  one  of  our  baptift  minifters  was 
the  miffionaryjwe  fhould  conclude  the  families  were 
capable  of  hearing,  receiving  and  obeying  the  word, 
as  did  Cornelius  and  his  family,  Lydia  and  her  houf- 
hold,  and  the  jaylor  and  his  •,  who  heard  the  word, 
believed  and  rejoyced  in  God.  Wc  are  under  no 
necefTity  of  fuppofing  infants,  to  be  included  in  the 
idea  of  a  houfhold  ;  fince  we  can  find  many  houf- 
holds,  in  which  there  is  not  one  infant. 

We  will  now  pafs  on  to  make  fome  remarks 
vipon  the  application  of  his  difcourfes  ;  and  fhould 
we  find  a  bitter  (pint  running  thro'  it,  and  now  and 
then  fevere  refledions  upon  the  bapt  fts,  we  muft 
conclude,  thofe  are  to  ferve  for  want  of  arguments ; 
and  is  what  is  common  when  all  other  refuge  fails; 
and  the  pains  which  are  the  efte6l  of  truth,  are  of- 
ten difcovered  by  bitter  invedives,  agreeable  to 
what  one  fays,  "  When  arguments  drive  the  oppo- 
nents into  paflions  and  excefies,  like  ftrong  purges, 
it  is  a  proof  of  their  opperation,  that  they  caufe 
griping  pains,  in  the  very  bowels  of  the  patient."  f 
In  his  firft  ule  we  find  him  hoping  to  be  kept  from 
a  cenforious  fpirit  in  all  that  he  (liould  fay  of  the 
baptifts,  (wrongly  called  by  him  and  others  Anar 
haptifls)  and  I  can  affure  him  it  would  have  plea- 
fed  me  to  have  found  lefs  of  that  fpirif.  running  thro' 
his  performance,and  more  of  the  fpirit  of  Chnft,f '  r 

whofe 
*  P.  47.  t  Bap.  Hifl.  Vol.  2.  P.  376. 


(     47     ) 

whofe  ordinance  we  are  contending.     Under  this 
ufe  he  blames  us  for  "  taking  parents  into  covenant 
without  their  children,**  and  don't  hefitate  to  fay, 
"  that  God  never  made  fuch  a  covenant,  and  its  a 
human  device."     I  fuppofe  he  means  the  covenant 
of  grace.    I  would  afk,  was  Cain  taken  into  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  with  his  facner  y^dam  ?  Was  IJkmael 
taken  into  the  covenant  of  grace  with  Abraham  his 
father  }  Or  did  Ifaac  take  with  him  Efau  into  the 
covenant  of  grace  ?  Or  were  all  *David's  children 
taken  into  this  covenant  with  him,  when  in  his  lail 
Words  we  hear  him  fay  ;  Altbo*  my  houfe  be  not  fo 
with  God  -J  yet  he  hath  made  with  me  an  everlafting 
covenant  y  ordered  m  all  things  and  Jure  ?  Why  1  judge 
he  means  the  covenant  of  grace,  is  from  his  alTcrt- 
ing  Eve  to  be  a  "  covenant  mother,  as  Abraham 
was  the  covenant  father  of  us  all  :"*  And  he  affirms 
that  "  the  Abrahamatical  covenant,  including  the 
feed  of  vifible  believers,  is  the  covenant  of  grace.'* 
I  never  before  knew  that  a  woman  was^of  the  two 
parties  between  whom  the  covenant  of  grace  was 
made.     I  defire  to  know  how  many  covenants  of 
grace  Mr.  P.  can  inform   the  world  of  ?    He  has 
told  us  of  three,  and  if  he  means  by  NoaFs  cove- 
nant a  covenant  of  grace,  which  he  brings  in  upon 
mentioning  Eve*s  and  Abraham^  covenant  :  then 
he  makes  four.     i.  He  fays  the  covenant  of  grace 
was  primarily  and  principally  with  the  Lord  Jcfus 
Chrift,  a3  the  fecond  Adam  and  with  his  feed,  -f— 
2.  It  was  with  4braham,\ —  3.  It  was  with  Eve,  §  — - 
4.  WxzhNoah :   And  yet  ||  he  tells  us  of  "  two  cove- 
nants reprefented  to  us  in  the   holy  fcriptures.'* 
The  reader  may  eafily  fee  the  confufed  notions  he 

has 
f  P.  4S.    t  P.  16.    t  P.  18.    §  P»  4S«    II  P.  15. 


(     48     ) 

has  of  the  covenant,  and  as  fuch  needs  not,  much 
wonder  at  his  error,  in  trying  to  make  the  world 
believe,  that  children  are  always  taken  into  the 
covenant  of  grace  with  their  parents.  This  opi- 
nion of  his  is  too  repugnant  to  fciipture,  to  palm 
upon  the  world  ;  fince  all  the  children  of  /idam 
were  not  taken  into  the  covenant  of  grace  with 
him  ;  which  covenant  was  revealed  to  him  foon  af- 
ter his  fall  !  For  if  this  had  been  the  cafe  all  his 
pofterity  wou!d  have  been  favtd,  (but  perhaps  ic 
would  have  fuired  Mr.  P.  better  to  have  mentioned 
Eve^  fince  he  makes  her  to  be  the  covenant  head.) 
Alfo  Abraham  had  an  excluded  JJhmael  \  Eli  had 
a  wicked  Phineas  and  Opbni  ;  and  David  an  un- 
godly Ainmon  and  Ahfalcm  :  fo  that  we  lee  the  co- 
venant of  grace  which  was  revealed  unto  /idam^ 
Abraham^  Eli  and  David  into  which  they  were  ta- 
ken, and  to  whom  it  was  confirmed,  did  not  in- 
clude all  their  children.  Indeed  ^David  and  all 
Albraham%  fpi ritual  feed  *  may  well  rejoyce,  in  that 
theirNanrLes  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life ; 
but  not  fo  their  natural  feed,  as  fuch. 

UzxiaFs  offence  which  Mr.  P.  mentions,  is  that 
which  I  would  earneltly  recommend  to  his  confi- 
deration  •,  his  blinded  zeal  without  a  divine  war- 
rant, moved  him  to  touch  the  ark  and  try  to  keep 
it  up,  which  touch  was  fatal. 

I  MUST  deny  that  "  the  Abrahamatical  covenant 
i^s  the  foundation  of  ordinances,"  i"  for  it  is  God's 
command  which  gives  being  to  them,  and  which 
muft  be  the  foundation  of  them,  and  not  Abraham^ 
covenant,  or  elfe  how  can  we  account  iox Abraham's 

having 

♦  Gal,  3.  29.        t  P.  50, 


(     49     ) 

having  the  covenant  made  to  him  twenty  four  years  be^ 
fore  the  ordinance  of  circumcifion  took  place  *  ?  Why 
did  he  remain  fo  long  after  the  covenant  was  made  with 
him,  before  he  and  his  were  circumcifed  ?  becaufe  he 
had  no  divine  comrnand  for  itj  confequently  no  right*  If 
ordinances  originate  from  theAbrahamatic  covenant,  why 
was  not  the  paiTover  fooner  obferved  ?  Yea,why  was  it  fo 
long  before  baptifm  and  the  Lord's  fupper  were  pradifed  ? 

In  p.  50.  "  He  informs  us,  that  it  is  a  great  injury 
done  to  the  children  of  believing  Parents,  to  deny  them 
the  right  of  baptifm."  This  injury  he  makes  to  confift 
in  their  being  cut  off  from  the  covenant  and  privileges  of 
it,  into  which  God  has  grafted  them.  It  would  be  well 
to  obferve.  i.  if  God  has  grafted  them  into  the  cove- 
nant, man  cannot  pluck  them  from  or  out  of  it.  2.  If  it 
is  God's  work  to  graft  them  into  the  covenant,  then  maa 
cannot  do  it,  neither  by  baptifm,  nor  by  virtue  of  his 
faith,  which  in  the  firft  fermon  he  fo  earneftly  contends 
for  :  Hence  we  may  conclude  it  to  be  mere  noife  with- 
out any  fubflance,  refpe6ling  our  excluding  children  from 
the  covenant,  or  not  bringing  them  into  it.  Mr.  P.  and 
all  the  men  in  the  world  cannot  cut  off  one  perfon  from 
the  covenant  of  grace,  whom  God  has  grafted  into  it  ; 
God's  work  is  fure,  whofe  purpofes  vain  man  cannot 
fruftrate.  As  to  theLegacy  which  he  mentions  being  left 
to  children  in  the  new  teftament,  by  Chrift  the  Teftator ; 
what  is  it  to  them  as  fuch  ?  Juft  nothing.  What  is  it 
to  them  as  believers  children  ?  Not  baptifm  nor  the  Lord's 
fupper  J  for  the  fcripture  is  filent  about  any  fuch  thing. 

In  a  marginal  note  f  he  fpeaks  of  re-baptizing,  and 
wants  to  know  how  often  it  may  be  repeated.  We  don't 
hold  to  re-baptizing,  fo  Mr.  P.  will  excufe  me  for  not 
anfwering  his  queftion.  The  mode  of  baptifm  by  dipping 
then  is  introduced,  which  he  endeavours  to  overthrow. 
Upon  the  mode  let  us    a    little  dwell.  %  "  As  to  the 

H  <'  lexi- 

*  Gen.^12.  3^' and  17.  I,  ^,  ^c.     t  P.  fi'     t  Dr.  Gill 
againft  Dickenfon. 


(     5°     ) 

**  lexicographers  and  criticks,  upon  the  greek  language?, 
*'  they  agree  that  the  word  Bapiizo,  fignihes  in  its 
*'  firft  and  primary  fenfe,  to  dip  or  plunge  j  and 
*'  only  in  a  fecondary  and  confequential  fenfe,  to  wa(h  ; 
*'  but  never  to  pour  or  fprinkle,  there  being  no  proper 
*'  wafliing  but  what  is  by  dipping  ;  and  ior  this  we  appeal 

*'  to  all  the  writers    of  this   kind. — Scapula   renders 

**  BaptizQ^  by  rnergo^  feu  immergo^  ut  qua  tingendi^  aztt 
*'  ahluendi  gratia  aqua  immcrgimuSy  to  dip  or  plunge 
'^  into,as  what  for  the  fake  of  dipping  or  wafhing  we  dip 
'*  into  water."'  Item.  *'  mergo^  fubmergo^  ahruo  aqua^ 
*' alfo  to  plwjgey  plunge   under ^   overwhelm  in  water, ^^ 

Stephens  gives  the  fame  fenfe  of  the  words,  and  fd 
"  Schrevelius,  who  renders  Baptizo,  by  bapiizo,  fnergo^ 
*'  lavo^  baptize^  plunge^  wajh.     Parjor  only  renders  it  bap- 

"  tizo^  baptize. And  Leigh  in  his  critica  facra,  ob- 

*'  ferves,  that  the  nature  and  proper  fignificatron  of  it, 
•'  is  to  dip  into  water,  cy-  to  plunge  under  water  ;'*  "  and 
*«  refers  to  Joh.  7,.  2 g^^  Matt.  3.  16.  Aas  8.  38.  and 
^'  cites  Cafaubon^  Bucanus^  BuHnger  and  Xanchy^  as  agree- 
"  ing  and  teftifving  to  this  fenfe  of  it  :  And  baptifma  he 
*'  fays  is  dipping  into  water. or  wafhing  with  water  :  Ta 
*'  v/hich  I  may  add  the  Lexicon  compiled  by  Budausy 
*'  Conjlantine^  and  others  who  render  the  word  Bapiizo, 
*^  by  immergo^  mergo^  &c.  plunge^  plunge  into^  &c." 
And  other  greek  criticks  might  be  produced  who  affirm 
<he  fame  tho'  thefe  at  prefent  may  fuffice.  Indeed  Mr. 
P.  "  fays  the  words  ufed  for  baptifm  fignify  afperfion 
as  plainly  as  immerfion,"  but  quotes  no  proof  for  it. 
His  criticifm  on  baptizo,  to  form  afperfion  from  thence, 
gives  the  world  as  plain  a  fpecimen  of  his  accuracy  -and 
knowledge  in  tht:Greck  language,  as  that  does  on  auton  :^ 
He  tells  us,  it  "  is  a  pronoun  relative,  and  fignifie's  others 
that  he  brought  in  the  light  of  his  own  faith."  Every 
frnatterer  in  the  Greek  language  may  know  auton  is  a 
pronoun  relative,  and  muft  relate  to  fome  antecedent, 
which  antecedent  in  Ads  16.  33  is  the  Jaybr  in  perfon, 
aa)d  not  in   action  j    fo  that  the  unlearned   reader  need 

not 

*  P.  7' 


(     5i      ) 

Xiot  be  dect         by  his  falfe  glofs  upon  it.     His   critlcifm 
on  the  prepofitions  app  and    eis  in  Matt.  3.  16.   and   ASts 
8.  38.   is  obfolete  and  of  little  ferv  ice  to  his  caufe,  which 
(fays  he)  "  ought  to   be  rendered  from   the    water,  and 
/<?,  or  unto^  or  towards,'^     I  muft  confefs   this  is  a  pretty 
way  to  impofe    upon  the  unlearned,  and    lead    them  to 
an  implicit  faith,  as  is  xhe  cafe  with  the  Roman    Catho- 
Jicks  :    But    I    would    have    the     reader     know    that 
thofe    texts   are    rightly    tranflated,   and    Mr.    P,  him- 
felf  muft  confefs  that  apo  Si  eis  fignify  into  and  out  of  in 
the  following,  as  well  as  many  other  pafTages.     Mat.  8. 
31,  32.  Mark.  5.  13.  Luk.  4.  35, — 4.1.  and  8.  29, — 33. 
and  Matt.  25.  46.       Who  will  dare  to  fay   the   unclean 
fpirits   were  not   in   the  man,  but   only  by  his  fide  or 
near  to  him  ;  and  fo  did  not  go  out  of  hut  fro/n  him  I 
And  who  will  fay  the  Devils    only  went  to   the  fwine, 
and  not  into  them,  and  that  the  fwine  run,  only  down 
to  the  water,  and   not   into  it  ?    And— the  righteous  only 
go  to  and  not  into  eternal  life  ?    And  the   wicked    only 
go  to  and  not  into  everlafting  punifhment  ?  None  but  fuch 
who  deny  that  apo  Sc  eis  fignify  cut  of  and  into. 

Is  it  not  evident  that  Chrift  was  baptized  of  John  /« 
the  river  Jordan,  when  we  here  the  Evangelifl  fay  that 
y^fus  —  was  baptized  of  jfohn  in  "Jordan  r''  *  Many  of 
the  Pedobaptijis  confefs  that  immerhon  was  the  primitive 
mode  of  baptifm.  f  "  Bifhop  Burnet^  upon  the  com- 
''  million,  in  Matt.  28.  19.  by  the  nrfl  teaching  or 
'^  making  of  difciples,  tha.t  muft  go  before  baptifm,  is  to 
*'  be  meant  the  convincing  of  the  world  that  Jtfus  is 
«'  the  Chrift,  the  true  Mcfiias,  anointed  of  God  with  a, 
*'•  fulinefs  of  grace  and  the  holy  Spirit  v/ithout  meafure  ; 
*'  and  lent  10  be  the  faviour  and  redeemer  of  the  v/orld  ; 
*'  and  when  they  were  brought  to  acknowlege  this, 
'^  then  they  were  to  baptize  them,  to  initiate  them  to 
*'  this  religion,  by  obliging  them  to  renounce  all  idola- 
''  try  and  ungodlinefs,  as  well  as  all  fecalar  and  carnai 
Hz  "  lufts 

^  Mark.  I.  9.       f  In  his  expofulon  upon  the  39  hzft 
Xiclcsj  P.  300* 


I    52    ) 

*^  lufls,  and  then  they  led  them  into  the  water  ;  and  with 

*'  no  other  garments  but   what  might  covernature,  they 

*•  at  firft  laid   them   down  in  the  water,  as  a  man  is  laid 

*'  in  a  grave,  and  then  they   faid  thefe  words,    1   baptize 

*'  or  walh  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  holy 

"  Ghoft  :  Then  they  raifed  them  up  again  and  clean  gar- 

"  ments  were  put  on  them  :   From  whence  came  the  phra- 

*'  fes  of  be'nig   baptised  into  ChriJVs  death^  of  being  buried 

**  with  him  by  baptifm^  into    death  :  Of    our    being    rijen 

**  icith  Chrij}^  and  of  our  putting  en  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrijiy 

^^  o^ putting  rjjf  ih£  aid  7?icin.^?ind  Tpuiung  en  the  new.     Alter 

^'  baptifcn  was  thus  performed,  the  baptised  perfon  was  to 

**  be  further  inftruct'd    in   aH  the   fpccialties  of  the  chri- 

**  frian   religion  :   And  in  all  the  rules  of  life  that  Chrifl 

<*  had  prefcribed." 

Mr.  Richard  Baxter^  in  his  paraphrafe  on  the  new 
tCilament  with  notes,  upon  the  following  texts  fpeaks 
thus,  Matt.  3.  5,  6.  *'  So  glad  were  the  people  to  hear 
*•  that  the  kirgdom  of  the  MefTiah  was  at  hand,  that  they 
^'  all  flDck'd  to  him  to  be  baptized,  prci'tfTing  repentance, 
*'  ti.at  they  might  be  prepared  for  the  kingdom.  Note  r. 
*•  We  grant  that  baptifm  then  was  by  wafbing  the  whole 
*'  body  :  and  did  not  the  differences  of  our  cold  country 
*•  as  to  that  hot  one,  te^ch  us  to  remember  [I  will 
*'  have  mercy  and  not  facrifice]  it  fhould  be  fo  here.=~ 
**  And  on  Rom.  6.  4.  Therefore  in  our  baptifm  v/e  are 
''  dipped  under  the  water,  as  fignifying  our  covenant  pro- 
*■  feffion,  thst  as  he  was  buried  for  fm,  v/e  are  dead  and 
*'  buried  to  fm,  that  as  the  glorious  power  of  God  raifed 
**  him  from  the  dead,  (b  we  fliould  rife  up  to  live  to  him 
•*  in  newnefs  and  hoiinefs  of  life. — Likewife  on  Cc'cf. 
"  2.  12.  And  its  more  than  a  circumcifion  of  your  lufts 
^'  that  you  have  in  Chrift  ;  they  are  dead  and  buritd  with 
**•  him  :  for  fo  ycur  baptifm  fignineth,  in  which  you  are 
'^  put  under  the  water,  to  fignitV  and  profefi  that  your 
'•  old  man,  or  ricfhsy  iuft  is  dead  and  buried  with  him  ; 
"and  you  rife  thence  to  fignify  and  profefs  that  you 
*'  rife  to  newnefs  o\  life,  and  heavenly  ho^es,  thro*  the 
••  belief  of  God's  works  that  jcaifcd  Chriil  from  the  dead." 

Mr. 


{     53     ) 

Mr.  Burket,  on  Rom.  6.  4.  and  the  famous  Dr.  Tf^ttjiuiy 
with  a  number  mentioned  by  Mr.  Stenmt  againft  Rujfen^ 
fonie  of  whom  are,  Da'ilh^  Monfieur  Mot  us y  Philippus  a 
Limbrochy  Jofeph  Mede^  Dr.  Taylor ^  Bifhop  of  Down  and 
Conner,  Dr.  Barroiu,  Archbi&op  Tillotfon,  Dr.  Burnet^ 
Dr.  Fowler  Bifhop  of  Glocefter,  Dr.  Cave^  Dr.  Towerjon^ 
Dr.  Whitby^  all  give  in  that  immerfion  was  the  primitive 
mode  of  baptifm.  And  Dr.  Floyer  in  his  "  Appeal  to  Dr. 
*'  Addifon  the  Dean,  Dr.  Hutchinjon^  Dr.  Chaundeler^  and 
''  Dr.  Brinckesy  and  Mr.  Hymberly,  Canons  Refidentaries 
<*  of  th?  cathedral  church  of  Litchfield,  aflerts  that  im- 
*'  merfion  continued  in  the  church  of  England  'till  about 
''  the  year  1600.  And  he  cites  feveral  Authors  to  prove 
*'  that  chriftianity  was  planted  iii  England  by  immerfion, 
*'  and  that  it  continued  in  England  after  the  reformation, 
*'  during  the  reign  of  Edward  the  fixth,  and  Queen  Eli^ 
<'  zabeth  -,  among  others  he  mentions  Bede,  who  relates  in 
*'  his  fecond  book,  that  Paulinus  baptized  King  Edwin 
**^  in  York,  in  the  year  627  ;  and  at  the  village  Rigin,  in 
•'  the  province  of  the  Bernicii,  he  baptized  a  great  num- 
^'  her  of  people  in  the  river  glem,  &c." 

I  WOULD  not  omit  what  the  afTembly  of  divines  in  their 
expofition  alTure   us,   "  On  Matt.  3.  6.  were  baptized] 

*'  wafhed  by  dipping  in  Jordan this  was  by  fpecial 

*^  commifiion,  Joh.  i.  33."  They  fpeak  of  the  mode  of 
baptifm  likevvife  as  fully  in  expounding  "  Rom.  6.  4. 
*•  Are]  Gr.  were  buried  with  him  by  baptifm]  fee 
"  ColofT.  2.  12.  In  this  phrafe  the  apoftle  feemeth  to 
*'  allude  to  the  antient  manner  of  baptifm,  which  was 
*'  to  dip  the  parties  baptized,  and  as  it  were  to  bury 
"  them  under  the  water  for  a  while,  and  then  to  draw 
*'  them  out  of  it,  and  lift  them  up,  to  reprefent  the  burial 
<«  of  our  old  man, and  our  refurredtion  to  newnefs  of  life." 

Mr.  lyhitefield's  teflimony  for  the  mode  fhould  not  be 
omitted,  in  his  fermon  from  Phil.  3.  10.  he  fays — ''  this 
**  we  have  fhadowed  out  by  the   cuflom  of  baptizing  by 

*'  immerfion   in   the    primitive  church." Mr.   P — 's 

criticifm  upon  udata  pollajtranflated  in  the  Engliih  Bible, 

HJttch 


c  54  ; 

much  water,  which  he  fays  ought  to  be  many  waters^ 
makes  nothing  for  his  practice  j  for  "  the  words  polla 
*'  udaia^  n  any  waters,  figniiy  a  large  quantity,  great 
^'  abundance,  both  in  the  literal  and  metaphorical  fenfe 
"  of  tne  phrafe,  as  it  is  ufed  by  the  evangelift  John  elfe- 
*'  where.  See  Rev.  i.  15.  and  17.  i  — 15.  And  by  the 
*'  Septuagint  interpreters,  it  is  ufed  even  for  the  waters 
*'  of  the  fea.  Pfal.  77.  19.  and  107.  23.  and  anfwers  to 
*'  Mayim  Kahbtm^  in  Cant.  8.  7.  many  waters  cannot  quench 
*^  ione  :  '*-Vhich  furely  muft  refer  not  to  a  fmali,  but  a 
"  large  quantity  of  water  ;  and  which  phrafe  there  the 
*f  Septuagint  render  by  much  water,  as  we  do  the 
*'  phrafe  here."  * 

The  Ifraelkes  paffing  thro'  the  red  fea,  he  thinks  makes 
for  fprinkling,  and  not  for  dipping,  which  may  be  judged 
by  the  reader,  after  he  obferves  them  defcend  into  the 
channel,  having  the  waters  as  walls  on  both  fides  of 
them,  and  oveifhadowed  with  a  cloud,  f  Is  not  this  a 
lively  emblem  of  a  burial  ?  Doubtltfs  it  is. 

He  X  charges  the  Baptijls  with  that  which  perhaps 
he  muft  confefs  the  Pedobapti/is  to  be  the  procuring  caufe 
of  (viz  J  excommunicating  the  reformed  churches  in  the 
world.  The  Baptijis  do  not  excommunicate  them,  tho* 
they  do  not  admit  them  into  their  churches,  till  they 
have  been  baptized  according  to  the  fcripture  mode.  It 
might  not  be  amifs  to  quote  what  the  excellent  Mr. 
Morgan  fays  on  this  point.  §  "  If  it  be  the  truth  which 
<«  we  hold,  and  if  it  is  by  pra6^ifmg  it,  we  unchurch  all 
*'  the  Prctcjlant  world,  np  matter  hov/  foon  it  is  un- 
«'•  churched.  If  not,  it  is  not  pcfnble  v/e  fiiould  do  it — 
*<  iinlefs  the  Frcteftant  world  unchurch  itfelf,  by  embra- 
*'  cing  our  principles — and  if  a  number  of  the  Prctrjlant 
<*  world  are  excluded  from  the  church,  it  is  the  principle 
«'  pf  infant  fprinkling,and  not  we  that  excludes  them  j  ier 
«<  if  th^re  is  an  exclufion  at  all  in  the  matter,  that  is  the 

"  caufs 

*  Dr.  Gill  agalnft  Dickenfon,  P.  102.  f  iLxod. 

14.  22.  X  P.  55'  §  Againil  F.  2d  Vol 


(    55    ) 

*^  caufe  of  it  in  fa<£l  :  We  can  do  it  only  do£lrina]Iy.— *i 
''  How  dreadfully  evil  then  muft  that  principle  of  infant 

*'  fprinkling   be  ! Surely    that   principle   cannot    be 

*'  true,  which  in  fail  has  fuch  ill  nature  and  tendency. 

His  fecond  ufe  now  comes  under  notice,  he  begins  it 
thus  :  "  Learn  hence  that  it  is  a  plain  duty  to  beware 
"  of  thofe  zealots  who  fet  themfelves  up  againft  our 
*'  chriftian  practice  of  Infant  Baptijm^  to  draw  away  dif- 
''  ciples  after  them  ;  fome  in  theApoftle's  days,  and  after- 
''  wards,  did  pervert  and  (train  feveral  fcriptures,  to  make 
'*  them  patronize  their  errors."  If  he  means  the  denial 
of  Infant  Baptifm^  to  be  one  of  thofe  errors,  then  it 
cannot  be  an  innovation  as  fome  would,  with  Mr.  P. 
make  it.  The  fpirit  and  temper  which  run  thro'  this 
iecond  ufe,  is  enough,  without  any  remarks  made  by  me, 
to  convince  the  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  badnefs  of  his 
caufe  ;  a  few  paflages  quoted  may  ferve  as  a  fpeOimen 
for  the  reader  to  judge  the  whole  by.  "  Of  late  Enthu- 
^\ftafm  and  Anahaptifm  have  joined  hands,  and  threaten 
*"to  fweep  away  our  glory.  The  Anabaptifis  are  almoft 
"everywhere  in  a  fever,  or  paroxifm  of  zeal  to  make 
''  profelites  to  their  fchifmatical,  narrow  party. — They 
"  have  already  fet  up  the  notorious  fchifmatical  practice 
^'  of  excommunicating  all  reformed  churches,  that  do  not 
•'  run  their  dangerous  lengths  :  And  what  further  may 
'•  not  be  feared,  when  enihufiafm,  inftead  of  real  chrifti- 
<'  anity,  leads  and  governs  any  part  whatever  ?  Would 
"  to  God  thofe  that  are  feized  with  this  party  fever, 
"  might  be  duly  fenfible  of  the  aims  and  ends  that  go- 
"  vern  them."  &c.  &c.  &c. 

Before  I  conclude,  fince  Mr.  P.  introduces  the  Ana' 
baptifls  in  Germany,  to  render  the  Baptifs  contemptible 
now  ;  I  would  obfsrve,  that  the  infurreilion  there,  by 
what  I  can  learn,  was  firft  began  by  the  Pedobaptifts^  and 
then  fome  of  the  Bapti/is  joined  them,  whofe  evil  adlions 
none  of  us  approve  of.     Mr.  Stmn^t  againft  Rufjen^  *  fays, 

*'  It 


(     56     ) 

i^*  It  ^eem?5  plain  from  the  hiftory  of  thofe  times,  thatth-* 

'\!^'  Papijis^?.^  well  as  Protejianis^  and  of  thefe  the  Pedcbap- 

^^.tljis^  as  well   as  Jnabaptijis^  were  concerned  in  them  ; 

''  and  that  the  vindication  of  their  civil  liberties  was  the 

"  chief  occafion  of  their  rifmg/*' 

I  don't  at  prefent,  recolle£l  any  thing  material  in  Mr» 
P — 's  fermons,  but  what  has  been  briefly  corfidered. 
And  now  to  all,  into  whofe  hands  this  piece  may  come, 
I  wifh  much  grace  and  wifdom,  ferioully  and  thoroughly 
to  examine  into,  and  weigh  thofe  arguments  for  Believer's 
Baptifm  ;  and  the  invalidity  of  thofe  for  Infant  Baptifm^* 
So  prayeth  him,  who  was  compelled  thus  publickly  to 
fpeak,  and  whofe  endeavours  to  promote  the  caufe  of 
God,  are  now  left  to  the  blefling  of  the  all- wife  Jefus, 
who  inftituted  this  ordinance,  and  honoured  it  by  paving 
the  way  into  the  liquid  grave,  wherein  his  humility  and 
example  glorioufly  ihine. 


FINIS. 


n^n 

M-^ 

^ 


i 


N'*,--'' 


